Visit our Popular Forums

Joli · 28-01-2008, 03:33

I'm just curious how you replace cast keel bolts every 5 years?

**Alan Wheeler** · 28-01-2008, 10:29

Quote:

1. If the Government thinks that it is necessary then let them pay for it.
2. & 3. Make a satisfactory inspection advisory not mandatory.

Here in NZ we have for road vehicles, a "warrant of fitness and "certificate of fitness" for heavy transport. I realise that many other countries including the US do not have this. I guess NZr's are a little less worried about Govt regulation and intervention because it is what we are brought up with. We my not agree with the decisions of the inspector at time of WOF, but it is also nice to know that "most" vehicles on the road driving toward you have a minimum required level of safety. Many times when there is an accident, the vehicle at fault was so because they had badly worn tires, or faulty suspention and so on. The same is kind of the same for boats. The recuer are not Govt. apart from airforce. They are often civilain volunteers. Often volunteers ecuase there is no one else capable, not because they simply wanted to join a volunteer org. One requirement of Cat1 is having certain rescue items on board that will aid in the crew being uplifted from the boat. The airforce have specialised rafts they drop. The raft is a one use only, can not be repacked and cost NZ$10K.

Weyalan · 28-01-2008, 13:04

I think that this issue goes to a deeper philosophical question as to personal responsibility versus societal responsibility. It is the marine equivalent of legistlating to make wearing seatbelts mandatory... personally, I always wear a seatbelt, but I hate that the government can legistlate to make it obligatory.

If I take the decision to go to sea, I do it willingly and with both eyes open. I take such measures and equipment as I deem necessary, and I do so on the basic premise that the responsibility for my actions and their consequences is mine alone.

The problem, as I see it, with bringing in stringent regulations is that it does seem to engender a belief that once you meet the regulatory standards, you are somehow "bulletproof" and nothing can go wrong. It also seems to have the effect of making some people believe that the responsibility for their own safety does not, ultimately, lie with themselves, but with "the government".

hellosailor · 28-01-2008, 13:20

"What is needed in the US for going off shore ???"
What is needed in the US is simply the price of the boat. And if it has an engine installed, you will be required to register it as a motor vehicle with one of the States, unless you've brought it in under a foreign flag with a cruising permit. Other than that? There are no federal requirements except for meeting USCG safety requirements (PFD's, fire extinguishers, sound devices, navigation lights, etc.) per the size class of the boat, unless a USCG boarding party for some reason boards you and declares the vessel "unsafe" and impounds it. And the vessel has to be grossly unsafe for that to happen.
If it isn't overloaded (past the maker's plate requirements), and it isn't grossly unsafe, and you have the USCG safety equipment on board, you're pretty much on your own--for a non-commercial pleasurecraft.

**Ex-Calif** · 28-01-2008, 17:16

My conflict in all this is that there are so many people in the US that say, "The government can't tell me what to do but they should be there to rescue me when things go wrong."

At the same time many complain of bloated government. The issue is that they want the services that they use paid for but the services that other's use are a waste of income tax revenue.

Aviation is a good example. Many countries have switched to direct user fees for weather reports, navigation assistance, airport landing fees etc. etc. The service is terrible and prohibitively expensive. Obviously the pilot community is outraged.

The issue is that they are a tiny fraction of the population, who views them as a bunch of rich spoiled babies. User fees were seriously on the table last year for aviation. Of course the private pilots leaned heavily on the argument that the infrastructure is needed for commercial aviation anyway so pilots shouldn't pay. We also pay fuel taxes, etc. Also there is a huge general aviation economy, blah, blah, blah...

All true. But the regulators react to constituents. For them it's about getting reelected. Pissing off 2 or 300 thousand pilots is not a bad deal when you want to be viewed as a tax cutter.

So back to boating. How about user fees for all the costs that the government bears. How about being charged for charts, port fees, rescues, licensing, etc, etc, etc. I think that would be terrible.

Now here is the tricky part - If the government is going to disburse public funds on behalf of a special interest group then I think the government has a right to regulate licensing and safety standards.

And as always - In our country - if you don't like the way it is, write your legislator or better yet, get elected and change things.

hellosailor · 28-01-2008, 18:14

Ah Dan? "How about being charged for charts, " Thank Ronald Reagan, that's why digital charts were privatized and Maptech had the monopoly on them for what, 20 years? Then there was last year's attempt to ban the NWS from competing with private weathercasters...Congress almost snuck that one by.

Get elected? Good lord no, and have to work in a building full of criminals all day long?!

**GordMay** · 29-01-2008, 01:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

...Then there was last year's attempt to ban the NWS from competing with private weathercasters...Congress almost snuck that one by.

Rick Santorum's proposed Bill* never even got a seconder.
He's now an ex-Senator

Santorum was defeated 59% to 41% in the 2006 U.S. Senate election by Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. This was the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since 1980.

* The National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
was a legislative proposal forwarded in April of 2005 by, now former, United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) to curtail government competition with commercial weather services from the National Weather Service. The bill attracted no cosponsors in the Senate and eventually died in committee.

hellosailor · 29-01-2008, 07:40

Aye, Gord, he screwed himself. And I suspect the mass of write-ins about his little hocuspocus had something to do with that.

But CongressCritters have this odd way of doing things. For instance, last year they effectively repealed out Posse Commitatus Act, which has been a "don't go there" topic since our Civil War. Did it without public knowledge or debate, by slipping the new code into the Defense Appropriations Act addenda, without referring to the old act by anything besides USC chapter and section--so it wouldn't show up on web searches, either. There were, and are, literally hundreds of pages of addenda to these large bills that no one really reads--even the folks who vote to pass them.

And too many of them have agendas.

**Alan Wheeler** · 29-01-2008, 10:07

Please lets not get into Politics

Weyalan · 29-01-2008, 12:53

Why is political discussion taboo per se? Provided people remember their manners and sense of humour, political discussion can be interesting, illumininating and even amusing.

Zach · 29-01-2008, 15:51

Are there companies in NZ that package up these goodies for rent till the next port of call? If not theres probably a market for it...

**Alan Wheeler** · 29-01-2008, 20:45

Quote:

Why is political discussion taboo per se

Because we are a boating site, and Politics are not allowed. It's to easy to get into arguments and besides, when we talk about Politics, it is in the context of the government of the country that the poster is from. US politics mean nothing more than a yawn to Kiwi's and Oz'ys and other countries. Just as NZ politics are a yawn to American readers. Most of us here don't want to talk politics, we want to talk boating. Lets get talking then.

dana-tenacity · 29-01-2008, 21:23

I have had the experience of bringing a boat up to Cat 1 to leave NZ more than once, some to race and my own to cruise.
I bought a lot of stuff, top of the line and expensive. None of it lasted very long and failed to function.
I have bought two boats offshore to go cruising, and a large part of the rationale was to avoid Cat 1.
I don't think they should be compulsory (races and organised events can and probably would stick to them, but I can choose not to enter). However they are an excellent reference for beginners.
I sailed the first 50,000 miles with a compass , sextant ( ok 2 sextants) and a lead line, SE Alaska was great.
As a result I object to being told what to do/carry by someone who may have less experience than I do. (That said I know some of the inspectors who have more experience than I do and I would value their opinion greatly).
The cat 1 regs are currently under revision. I have long argued that the regs should be available on line (currently you have to buy them from Yachting NZ) and I'm told they will be after the revision. YNZ tends to work in a vacuum so to my knowledge there has been no interaction with the sailors on these revisions (I'll find out about that).
Would I sail offshore without a GPS, sure, an SSB, sure, a liferaft, as long as I was satisfied with the alternative sure. And I think that decision should be mine.