thoughts on fine

[robersl]

hi all
i think i heard on the news today that the man who's boat boat got swamped off margate at xmas with the kids in it was fined $3,000 DOLLARS IN COURT TODAY DO NOT THINK IT WAS 300 JUST CAUGHT THE TAIL END OF THE BROADCAST. A BIT STEEP IN MY VIEW BEING MADE AN EXAMPLE OF YES OK FINE THE MAN BUT IF I HEARD RIGHT THATS A BIT STEEP, AND I HAVE READ ALL THE PREVIOUS THREADS AND VIEWS VARY BUT THERE HAS TO SOME BENIFIT OF DOUBT GIVEN BUT I SUPPOSE WE STILL HAVE NOT HEARD ALL THE FACTS

[wayneoro]

mate wish i could buy shares $3000 every time a boatie does an idiot thing beattie cant believe his luck hellow hes found the source for his hospital finances

[trueblue]

I won't comment on the amount of the fine because I don't know what it was, however this guy did have two little kids out in the bay in very ordinary weather in an undersized open tinne compared to the conditions, with the wrong safety equipment.

The kids were wearing incorrect life jackets, which wouldn't keep an unconcious persons head out of the water in an incident. Yes, the weather did turn on him, but one always has to be properly prepared and in the right type of boat for conditions that may blow up.

But lets not slag off at the bloke, I'm sure he was doing what he thought was ok - everyone makes mistakes and I'll bet he won't do it again.

Instead how about we all just learn from his mistakes and make sure that we always promote safe boating in respect to potential weather conditions, and the carrying of proper safety equipment by all boaties.

[ssab1]

what price recklessness?? probably cost the taxpayer more than that for the rescue,not counting court and admin costs.yeh i didn`t think he`d get that but hell i`m not a magistrate and didn`t get the full details,only what i read and we all know the media.lets hope it makes people think..cheers.

[longtail]

now that the matter is over in court , i think now might be a good time to let this go. sure the guy made some mistakes that could have cost a life but him and his kids are alive and thats all that matters , besides between the fine and the chewing he would have got from the kids mother i think he has been punished enough. you can be sure he will have the right gear next time.

just my opinion

cheers
jason

[Feral]

The kids were wearing incorrect life jackets, which wouldn't keep an unconcious persons head out of the water in an incident.


According to Govt charts you dont need PFD1's in Moreton bay, its all classed as either smooth or partially smooth waters, so PFD2's are fine. Maybe he had them in adult jackets.

[trueblue]

This is where you go from the mandatory minimum requirements to general safety obligations.

And he also had them in PFD 3's from memory, and that is why he got charged.

Even still, think to yourself if your kid 3 or 4 year old kids would have much of a chance of survival being tossed around in 2 metre seas without a PFD1. There are some very good PFD 1's available for kids, so they should be used as standard equipment.

[Feral]

Possibly, but PFD1's are pretty uncomfortable for kids to wear, so getting them to keep them on is generally hard. (although in the rough weather they experienced I dont think that would be an issue).

What it does mean is that the next person whom gets in trouble, and does not have the right safety gear on board is going to seriously think twice before calling for help.

[sf17fisherman]

Possibly, but PFD1's are pretty uncomfortable for kids to wear, so getting them to keep them on is generally hard. #(although in the rough weather they experienced I dont think that would be an issue).

What it does mean is that the next person whom gets in trouble, and does not have the right safety gear on board is going to seriously think twice before calling for help.
i disagree with that
sure the brick types are uncomftable but you can get some really good ones that more hun the child and are not that bulky so they can still fish in them ;)
i'm sure the father if he was like any one of us could care less about the fine or how much it cost the tax payer
all he would be doing is belting himself up on the inside for putting his kids through it
no dout he would give his own life for it never to happen to them again i know i would

now to everyone out there with kids
make sure you have the best gear you can get for their safty

[Feral]

Well I certainly agree with that!

[Derek_Bullock]

Looks like a guilty plea to the charge. #Now thats interesting considering his original statements when he was first charged.


Derek


Last Update: Tuesday, January 31, 2006. 9:00pm (AEDT)

Man berated for taking sons out in rough seas

A Redcliffe magistrate has berated a man for taking his two young sons into treacherous conditions on Moreton Bay in south-east Queensland.

Scarborough man Troy Winchester, 32, was forced to call for help last month after his 4.2 metre runabout ran into difficulties in 2-metre seas and winds reaching up to 28 knots.

He was on a return journey from a camping trip to Moreton Island and his five and two-year-old sons were on board.

Winchester today pleaded guilty in the Redcliffe Magistrates Court to the unsafe operation of a vessel.

Magistrate Ross Woodford fined Winchester $3,000, telling him that he should have known the dangers of Moreton Bay, given his seven years experience working on prawn trawlers.

Mr Woodford said Winchester's actions were stupid and dangerous.

[CHRIS_aka_GWH]

Possibly, but PFD1's are pretty uncomfortable for kids to wear, so getting them to keep them on is generally hard. #

add that to the list of ineffective, no, lazy parenting quotes.
"Kids these days don't have manners"
"My kids won't eat fruit & veges"
"My kids won't wear a hat & sunscreen"
etc

ya kids will as habit if you make it a habit.
& tell them the number one rule of boats - what the skipper says happens without question.


The impression I got of the guy from the news was someone who genuinely loved his kids but acted with reckless abandon because that was how he had lived - his quote was something along the lines of making them a sea-man.
We all make poor errors of judgement hopefully he realises he went beyond that & learns from it.

chris

[thumps]

here we go again


serves him right >:(

3k...isnt enough IMO >:(

should have had his licence taken too >:(

and the uniform wearing of PFD's should be considered in QLD...as in other states >:(

enough of this confusion over smooth and partially smooth waters >:(


the mans an idiot and others like him...and those that dont spend a few bucks to put their children(at least) in proper jackets need a swift reminder of the value of life

lets hope this bloke has saved a few lives by being punished..and by being made an example of

[Darryl]

Well this means everyone who has not got the proper life jackets should be fined 3 grand. Whats good for one is good for all.

[bidkev]

My thoughts on it (as if you're interested) ;D

The life jackets per se, wasn't the issue. He was fined for unsafe operation of a vessel. The magistrates would have taken into account the fact that he was an experienced deckhand and as such, should know better than most, the risks that he was taken, so hence the stiffer penalty than would otherwise been handed down.

One thing that puzzles me though is that a few reports have had him setting off in calm water? Visualising the storm the previous night and the wind that was on my face the following morning, I find this hard to reconcile with what *I* would have envisaged the sea to be like that morning? The police actually said that he should never have set off, and this was based *purely* on the sea state, not the life jacket issue.


kev

A relationship is like sand in your hand. If held loosely in the palm of your hand it stays there, but as soon as you close your hand tightly it slips through your fingers.

[thumps]

Well this means everyone who has not got the proper life jackets should be fined 3 grand. Whats good for one is good for all.


dam straight


but as Kingtin says...he wasnt entirely fined for that

[Jitlands]

He pleaded guilty so he has acknowledged the error.
Perhaps community service order with the VMR and a donation to careflight may have been a better option than more money for Beattie to squander

Perhaps to obtain a boat licence we should be tested on ability to better determine sea conditions based weather forecasts and charts along with tidal variations.

[thumps]

ok...this little chat will have me on a soap box....so


stuff the Beattie Government....its not about who got the money from the fine

its about the fact that ONE man recklessly put the lives of two young boys in danger

as was expressed by the Magistrate


he blamed everyone else before he was fined...ie the guy who sold him the Jackets

IF the law was standardised there would be NO confusion at all.

[lunar_c]

Seeing as we are going again..
Pleading guilty has nothing to do with being guilty - especially for something as subjective as "recklessness".
ABC News replayed some of the footage last night. They showed a quick shot of both kids walking off the police boat. Both were wearing vest type PFD2- as per regulation for partially smooth waters. Looked like "next size up" at most.
Remember that there is no definition for "apropriate size" in the legislation.

The CourierMail report from the time of the incident
stated as fact: the BoM forecast was 15kn
stated as fact: blew 28kn when he was half way across.
He required a tow, not a rescue, 2k out.
You can logically deduce that he had a fair reserve of fuel.

The lesson here is that the regulations mean nothing.
When it goes bad you had better be fully equipped for the situation you find yourself in.
Also apparent is that the prosecutor and magistrate have an opinion on minimum hull size for Moreton Bay.

I would still like to know who he sent the SMS to..

[bigbrian47]

what happens to the $3000 ???
brian

[Darryl]

Kev i wouldn't bet the Whittley on it wasn't calm that morning. ::) ;D

I was out there that morning and it was like a pond....4.30 am beautiful.5.00am and all hell broke loose, it was like someone let the plug out.

But i do admitt i was in the Peel Island area.

[DR]

ok...this little chat will have me on a soap box....so


stuff the Beattie Government....its not about who got the money from the fine

its about the fact that ONE man recklessly put the lives of two young boys in danger

as was expressed by the Magistrate


he blamed everyone else before he was fined...ie the guy who sold him the Jackets

IF the law was standardised there would be NO confusion at all.





& it will change nothing ..
i reckon there are probably some on this site, sitting & reading this who will still miscalculate & put them & theirs in the same position...'it will never happen to me!' doesn't matter what the law is, they still won't obey it..
from memory, somewhere on here i read thumps that you were involved in law enforcement, so you would have a better understanding of people who don't give a fig & do as they please anyway.

where are judges like this guy, when you get some sh*thead that has a dozen break & enters or assaults, stolen cars,drugs etc. & all they KEEP getting are slaps on the wrist.

ps, no sympathy for the man, he should have all the correct gear in his boat..

[lunar_c]

What gear did he not have?

[thumps]

DR


it comes with years of listening and seeing the "I dont give a fig..she'll be right attitude"


well sometimes it wont be right

i agree on the judge issue as well...its called "political correctness"...and to let some of these people back on the street gets my goat as well


the point here is simple...if the law was one...in Aus...and not all this confusing b/s that allows for misiformation to be carried over...then things would be a little different.

im not talking about Big Brother stuff...or which Premier gets more money to do what with

I'm talking plain simple common sense..its something that is missing in todays society.

i personally fitted and threw my kids in a pool to test there correct fit etc....before the were allowed on the boat...and they wear PFD' 1s ALL the time

public opinion can change the way a Law is written.....and in alot of cases the Law is written to appease and make things a little easier for our way of life.....but in doing this we miss the point of the Law in the first place.

this Guy was charged and convicted of placing his Kids in Danger.....something we as adults should never do.


the circumstances are not for us to judge...although we do as a matter of course..and to further inform ourselves of what too expect if we commit the same errors.


the fact that he coped a FINE...is in a way a slap on the wrist....he will go back into the ocean and still do things the way he sees fit....but he will just become more cagey ..and blame the authorities for harrassing him....( Bloody cops and their fund raising)

if we as citizens...were to comply with the way its supposed to be...and not contort or manipulate the way we want it to be....there would be enough law enforcment officers...and less people would committ serious LIFE THREATNING errors

anyway...thats my soap box...ill step off now

[fish2eat]

What gear did he not have?


Fuel - for a start

whether he required a tow or a rescue, his lack of planning caused others to be put at risk to go fetch him. The lifejackets were only part of the equation, its the whole deal added up that made the charge of negligent operation of a vessel

his experience should have known better
1 adult overseeing 2 kids
wrong type lifejackets
insufficient fuel
AND....althogh the lifejackets were the only things mentioned, that is partially smooth water and I'll bet that there were other things missing such as V sheet, paddle et al

quite rightly he's pleaded guilty, doesn't want to talk about it, and we should let it drop as well

[lunar_c]

i personally fitted and threw my kids in a pool to test there correct fit etc....before the were allowed on the boat...and they wear PFD' 1s ALL the time


And how did you simulate an angry ocean in your swimming pool?
I've seen kids float around quite successfully in jackets that were way to big.
Kids can also wriggle out of the best fitting jackets - try it you'll be surprised.



the circumstances are not for us to judge...although we do as a matter of course..and to further inform ourselves of what too expect if we commit the same errors.

Absolutely for us to judge.
Natural justice as per the Magna Carta requires that we be judged by a jury of our peers.




the fact that he coped a FINE...is in a way a slap on the wrist....he will go back into the ocean and still do things the way he sees fit....but he will just become more cagey ..and blame the authorities for harrassing him....( Bloody cops and their fund raising)

Yeah.. once guilty, always guilty - should be in jail. Should make sure his kids never go fishing again.
Public crucifixion is the best way to keep the herd in line.



if we as citizens...were to comply with the way its supposed to be...and not contort or manipulate the way we want it to be....there would be enough law enforcment officers...and less people would committ serious LIFE THREATNING errors


And what exactly was the error?
He launched in good conditions with a good forecast and a reserve of fuel in a fully equipped boat.
Make that over equipped - he had a phone

[sf17fisherman]

the fact that he coped a FINE...is in a way a slap on the wrist....he will go back into the ocean and still do things the way he sees fit....but he will just become more cagey ..and blame the authorities for harrassing him....( Bloody cops and their fund raising)

if we as citizens...were to comply with the way its supposed to be...and not contort or manipulate the way we want it to be....there would be enough law enforcment officers...and less people would committ serious LIFE THREATNING errors

anyway...thats my soap box...ill step off now
wanted to highlight that point as i can't see how we can say if he will go and do it again and be cagey about it or if he has learnt for the huge mistak of putting his children in harms way

i would think he is more than likly in the second case as many australian would be
our children come first and all this hoo haw about him doing the wrong thing and all this is nether here or there
i would bet not only the left one but both that he wishes none of this had happened and that he didn't put his kids through that

as for what gear he had we yes he may not of had the right lifejackets (and i agree with him that boat dealer need to set up more) i have seen countless times of boats brand new being sold to young familys with mum dad and two kids and yet the dealers are more than happy to send them out with four adult life jackets and never mention how they are useless to the kids if the time comes
dealers should really look at who they are selling the boats to and fit them up according

and as for fule well when the going gets tougher than you could of expected then your tank of fule woun't last all that long
hell if we are going to charge people with neglect for running out of fule then the courts will be full after the weekends
biggest call out for the VMR's is for boats running out of fule
for me i fill my tanks up each time i use them but no dout one day i may run out if i do get caught out

[fish2eat]

Fining one guy $3000 and making an example of him was supposed to be a message to the rest of us and teach us all a lesson


It obviously has not done that!!!!!

[thumps]

lunar c

a life jacket is to be tight fitting...and is...if fitted correctly..and my kids have trouble taking it off and putting it on on land

a PFD1 is designed to hold your head above water taking into account the body mass..and does, if fitted correctly.

to stimulate any conditions is the job of the PFD 1 makers...and is governed by the AS1512 rules that make it a PDF1.

and besides...he had them in PFD 3's...which is my point about uniform laws in Aus


we are Not America...and the magna carta thing...well!!

he was judged by Australian Law...by a Judge.....not a group of peers..but by one Peer with his own views...as you have yours.

his error was not taking his kids to be fitted correctly....his error was buying something incorrect..based on what he saw..and was supposedly told by someone else....(third hand info)...instead of doing the right thing as per the law...and ensuring that he NEVER put those kids in danger.

is a childs life worth less than a trip to the dealer for a correct fit????...or a trip to the DPI...or similar.....to find out what is correct???

he stated his years of experience as a commercal fisherman....does this give him the right to make a bad judgment???...or should he have known better???

the sea conditions were a catalyst for a series of events that led him to placing his children in Danger....

BECAUSE...they were incorrectly fitted...and supplied without the PROPER saftey gear...by HIM

[bidkev]

Kev i wouldn't bet the Whittley on it wasn't calm that morning. ::) ;D

I was out there that morning #and it was like a pond....4.30 am beautiful.5.00am and all hell broke loose, it was like someone let the plug out.

But i do admitt i was in the Peel #Island area.

Yeah mate I can well believe you and that is just another of the issues here that we really aren't qualified to respond to. We really have no knowledge of what the sea was like when he left. I've left Shorncliffe for Moreton at 5.30 one evening on glass and by 5.45 I was crapping myself heading for the shelter of mud. I really thought I was a goner (and would've been in kingtin) and what made matters worse was I had the littlest feller with me.

What we need to do here........and I think we need to do it for the benefit of our own education and "upskilling" is actually put yourself in the position of that bloke according to the facts that we have at hand. Unfortunately, some of those "facts" come from the media so even if we do the exercise here, some "data" may be "perjured".

I can only judge (as we all can) from our own experience and standpoint and what I do know is that the bay is *very* unpredictable and as the bom says, "allow for another 40%". Weather can also be very localised and unfortunately we can't predict as to where squalls may occur but we should factor that into our equations.

So here we are, analysing. :D

First point: If it was blowing at 15 as someone has said, and judging the size of the boat, I would say that was pretty borderline as to whether to go, no, sorry, I would say I *wouldn't* go (and on that day, I chose not to, even with the Whittley).

2nd point: It isn't always true but I think that we should all conceede that wind deteriorates as the day draws on. Now give him the benefit of the doubt and judge the wind at only 10, then allow for it to get worse and then stick that 40% on that the bome warn us of. On that thinking and even though the wind is at 10, I wouldn't go.......In the Whittley I would, but not in a tinnie that size. He may decide to go, and his decsion may well have not had the consequences as luck qould have been on his side, but should we, as parents, rely on that element of luck?

3rd point: he ran out of fuel when he should have arrived home with extra

4th point: The life jackets, and "personalities" aside, think on the fact that he was an experienced deckie yet tried to blame someone else for his failure to have the correct ones. What does that tell you about his integrity? If he was new to boating, fair enough, give the guy a break, but he wasn't new and probably had more experience than many of us here who would have acted more approriately, so how come they weren't approriate? Was he misguided and should he have needed guidance? No, he should know full well the requirements, and if that is so, and he *did* know the requirements, yet another "integrity" question.

There are probably other points that could be raised but those are enough for me to put myself in his shoes in deciding whether to go or not

It has been said that we should abandon this debate but just for a moment think what we have all gained from it? Isn't this good and healthy? The only thing I'm pissed off about is that this debate cost me another 500 bucks for vest type pfd's ;D

No, I think it is good that we can discuss like this, and it's good that we can give blokes a break when they deserve it, but not once have I seen this bloke admit responsibility. He has spent more time trying to convince the media that he is a "good father" and really, only he knows if that is true so it really isn't for us to judge.

What we can judge though is has he learned from it, have we learned from it? I know the latter is true, but in life generally and even more so in raising kids, we have to "own" our behaviour. We have to teach our kids that when certain behaviours affect themselves and others they shouldn't try to wheedle out of the consequences of those behaviours. If they don't own the behaviours and try to blame other circustances, then they don't learn from it generally and they don't learn from it in particular relating to responsibility. Nothing has indicated to me that this bloke has "owned" his behaviour, and that, more than the crisis he placed him and his kids into, is the saddest part of this fiasco. I can only visualise him as telling his kids that they were just "unlucky". I sincerely hope this is untrue and I apologise to him in advance if he has taught his kids the appropriate lesson that should have been learned.

I have attempted here not to kick a bloke when he's down and am just trying to illustrate that we can sometimes judge without going through things step by step before passing judgement. I am really just thinking out loud as to where *my* feelings lie on this issue. I would also like to state that if I ever got myself into this sort of strife, that fellow boaties could go through this process and better help *me* understand where I may have gone wrong, as on many occasions, and even at my age, I still don't own some of my behaviours.

I think we have to accept here that criticism will always exist on a chat board and we must try not to personalise it. As long as that criticism is seen as constructive and an aid to learning, then we can only better ours, and other peoples position, in relation to safety etc.

kev

It is important to stay cool, but be sure to not get frostbite.

[sf17fisherman]

Fining one guy $3000 and making an example of him was supposed to be a message to the rest of us and teach us all a lesson


It obviously has not done that!!!!!
:o???

[DR]

Fining one guy $3000 and making an example of him was supposed to be a message to the rest of us and teach us all a lesson


It obviously has not done that!!!!!


it only reinforces the message to those that would not do it anyway...
the ones that think it is overkill or think they can get away with it will never change whatever their thoughts or attitude to the situation ..

[roz]

I heard it on the ABC new last night, and IMHO this man showed a complete lack of commonsence and poor judgement....probably the same thing. The penalty was well and truely deserved.

roz

[lunar_c]

Fining one guy $3000 and making an example of him was supposed to be a message to the rest of us and teach us all a lesson


It obviously has not done that!!!!!

Exactly - making an example of people has never, and will never achieve anything.
And until someone can precisely and rationally describe the mistake he made, there is no lesson here either.

[thumps]

Fining one guy $3000 and making an example of him was supposed to be a message to the rest of us and teach us all a lesson


It obviously has not done that!!!!!

Exactly - making an example of people has never, and will never achieve anything.
And until someone can precisely and rationally describe the mistake he made, there is no lesson here either.





the sea conditions were a catalyst for a series of events that led him to placing his children in Danger....

BECAUSE...they were incorrectly fitted...and supplied without the PROPER saftey gear...by HIM

[juicyfruit]

[quote author=Feral link=1138699525/0#7 date=1138711734]

now to everyone out there with kids
make sure you have the best gear you can get for their safty


And that of yourself. IMHO you are limiting your children’s chance of survival if you aren't in the boat or out cold on the deck.

Juicy

[bidkev]

[quote author=sf17fisherman link=1138699525/15#28 date=1138748388<snip>

as for what gear he had we yes he may not of had the right lifejackets (and i agree with him that boat dealer need to set up more) i have seen countless times of boats brand new being sold to young familys with mum dad and two kids and yet the dealers are more than happy to send them out with four adult life jackets and never mention how they are useless to the kids if the time comes
dealers should really look at who they are selling the boats to and fit them up according


[/quote]

Mate, this is what constantly frustrates me in life in general. What the hell has it got to do with dealers or anyone else for that matter just what your kids will be wearing? Their responsibility is to sell you a seaworthy boat and if it comes with adult life jackets then it isn't up to the dealer to say, "er excuse me, do you have kiddies so I can swap these adult lifejackets for you". Yes, it would be nice if he did, but I think that if we all think about it, there is just too much of this crap around nowadays.

As I have said, it's about owning *our* behaviour and accepting *our* responsibility. It's *our* responsibility to insure our kid's safety not some dealer.

I am getting the distinct feeling in this thread that some are judging this guy based on the notion that they may have similar "bad luck". They are arguing his case for fear that similar circumstances may befall them and they don't want to be judged as he is being judged. I am not aiming this at anyone, just stating that this is the "overall" impression that I am getting from this thread, and if that impression continues then I think there will be some of us who will have learned nothing.

I'm not perfect, and no doubt in the future (now I have tempted fate), something may happen whereby I will be in need of help, but when it's all over, I will not blame "unforseen" circumstances. You make allowances for the "unforseen" where your kids safety is concerned. What you think about your own "luck" is your business. Yes, I may make mistakes, and yes, I will be called to book for them, what I will not do is say that I was just "unlucky".

When you make mistakes, you hold your hands up, and when others make mistakes, you don't defend them just because a similar set of circumstances may befall you.

kev

It is not against the law to be stupid, but it is stupid to be against the law.

[bidkev]

[quote

<snip>And until someone can precisely and rationally describe the mistake he made, there is no lesson here either.


And here's me thinking I had done just that??????? ;D

kev

You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink

[Darryl]

Good points Kev, i wouldn't have made the trip in my 19 footer *myself* but if we dont make mistakes in life what do we learn...

I'm sure people in here have done a stupid thing or 2 in the past, and the only thing that seperates this guy from them is they didn't get caught.


And for everyones information , I have 4 kids and spent well over 700 bucks on the right gear, Overkill gear actually for where i fish with the kids, but i know they will be safe. Afterall you cant put a dollar value on a kids life.

[bidkev]

Good points Kev, i wouldn't have made the trip in my 19 footer *myself* but if we dont make mistakes in life what do we learn...

I'm sure people in here have done a stupid thing or 2 in the past, and the only thing that seperates this guy from them is they didn't get caught.

<snip>



Agreed mate and downright honest. We can all be prats at times and think that we're invincible but the sad fact is that some folk know they're *not* invincible, yet continue to put themselves, and others at risk.

As I've said, we can't make allowances or minimise mistakes of others just because we've made 'em and may make a few more in the future. It's not the mistakes made via "human nature' that worries me, it's the recklesness and "she'll be right" attitude that seems to be getting more and more prevelant nowaday.

I mean, if we lose someone to a drink driver we don't minimise that just because we've driven when we've had a few drinks ourselves. Why then should we apply that non-logical stance to boat safety?

Don't know if folk are just getting used to "living life in the fast lane" and are less unafraid than they used to be? It's like the rave culture. Despite knowing that deaths and brain damage have occured, kids just continue to think of ecstacy as a "soft drug". I suppose they think they'll just be "lucky" and nothing will happen to them. When it does, they simply respond with, "I thought it'd be ok 'cause others are doing it <sigh> Similar applies to boat safety I suppose? "We've got away with it once so let's keep doing it.

kev

It is not a war on drugs; it's a war on people.

[lunar_c]

They are arguing his case for fear that similar circumstances may befall them and they don't want to be judged as he is being judged.


Exactly right Kev.
Everything that this guy has done wrong is a question of degree.
His kids were in PFD2 - a bit big but not ridiculously big - I saw the picture.
He had reserve fuel - but how much is enough?
Are we supposed to take the BoM forecast and double it?

Most of the hand wringing here is because it could have been worse.
Well it can always be worse - for any of us at any time.
I don't know what method you use to see the "unforseen" - but I'll wager anything you like you haven't seen all of it.

No one wants to acknowledge that he handled everything he was presented with that day and at no time were the jackets "tested". Until you can prove that his helmsmanship was incompetent, you can't assume his kids were "in imminent danger"

Once the law starts punishing citizens for outcomes that *might* occur, we are all in serious trouble.

I will happily stand corrected if someone can precisely identify the error he made.

[thumps]

:-/

i'm done on this one

well said Kev

see below quote ;)

[Gazza]

the fine is ridiculously excessive.....i'd appeal it >:(

[ssab1]

lunacy..a fair reseserve of fuel..fair go mate.. missed by that much isn`t good enough..if you can`t calculate how much fuel you need (use worse not best conditions you shouldn`t venture further than you can paddle.to use thumps words and quote ,if i may .alex >:( >:(

[sf17fisherman]

kev not sure if you have seen what i have but i have seen dealer see young family with kids new to boating not knowing anything (it wasn't the case in this case)see them with their young kids and just hand them the brick type cheap pfd1 and say nothing
now in many cases the famliy goes out boating thinking they are fine they have 4 pfd1 as stated they must in the safty list unawear that the adult pfd1 is next to useless to there little 5 year olds

i have even seen it with a single mother buying a boat for the river for her and her three kids same thing left the store without proper jackets and where i'm getting at is that the dealer aren't even surgesting they they upgrade the jackets to the kids ones
in most cases people will be more than happy to fork out the extra for the proper pfd1 for the kids

sure in alot of our cases we are awear of what is needed and what we need above the standered safty gear but people new to boating don't they are only going by what the law says

back to the topic as i have said he may or maynot be ok with the fine me myself i couldn't care less about a fine aslong as my son got out ok
i would be so bitter with myself for putting him there

i have been caught out in squalls so i know they can pop up unexpected and very quick so i know takeing my family boating i'm putting them at risk each time

[-spiro-]

He got off lightly if you ask me. Should of also made him do community service with the coastgaurd aswell. >:(

[trueblue]

The boat dealer might not have had anything to do with it. he said on the news not long afterwards that he was going to sue BCF who sold him the jackets because they gave him the wrong advice on what type to get...

[bidkev]

[quote author=kingtin link=1138699525/30#38 date=1138751292]

They are arguing his case for fear that similar circumstances may befall them and they don't want to be judged as he is being judged.

<snip>

Once the law starts punishing citizens for outcomes that *might* occur, we are all in serious trouble.

I will happily stand corrected if someone can precisely identify the error he made.



Mate, my first conviction was for wilful damage. I argued that when I threw the stone, I was not aware that it would hit the street lamp and then go through someone's bedroom window (who just happened to be a copper) ;D. The law argued that I *should have* been aware.

If someone throws a punch in a brawl and that punch results in someone's death, the defendant would argue, "M'lud, I didn't think that "might" happen" Then it could be argued that this was a situation where the defendant should have identified that it *might* occur.

This is *precisely* why bom states that wind "might* increase by 40%. The guy must have been aware of that and therfore had a consequence (in law) for underestimating his actions. It wasn't a "might" that the wind would increase as the day drew on it was almost a racing certainty as we all well know. The seas "might" increase and he *may* have to use more petrol. He didn't allow for that and is therefore guilty of putting his kids at risks.

Life is full of "mights" and "what ifs" and if we don't allow for them we are doomed. The drunk driver thinks he *might* get home without being breathalysed and that one "might" that he took it upon himself to "go for" then results in a death. Some could argue that that wasn't a might but in many cases a racing certainty. How many drunk drivers have been caught before.? They're the guys that place absolutely no store by "mights" and fail to see that often "mights" become inevitabilities. They're gamblers by nature and unfortunately, gamblers, just as drug addicts do, take others down with them

kev

A good way to change somebody's attitude is to change your own.

[bidkev]

kev not sure if you have seen what i have but i have seen dealer see young family with kids new to boating not knowing anything (it wasn't the case in this case)see them with their young kids and just hand them the brick type cheap pfd1 and say nothing
now in many cases the famliy goes out boating thinking they are fine <snip>

And there we have it mate.........."Thinking ther are fine" They shouldn't thin, they should *know*

Come on, let's get real here, When we buy a car we don't expect a salesman to tell us how to fasten our seat belts ar even the legalities of fastening 'em.

I'll say it for the last time because it is so bllody annoying to me (due in part to my own baggage) to hear what is inferred here. "It is no-one's responsibility for *my* kid's safety other than my own. This delegating of resposibility that is so prevelant nowadays is ruining tha fabric of our society. *WE* owe it to our kids and society at large to take responsibility, take blame and admit fault in *all* things rlevant to family matters. It's not the school's fault......It's not the media's fault.......it's not peer pressure that's at fault........it's not even the fault of the ridiculous political corretness that blights our society. All those make positive parenting nigh on impossible but we don't just give up and hope someone else will put us right. Responsibility lies first and foremost in the hands of the parents and it is *their* responsibilty to *ensure* that they know to the best of their ability and not just *think" they know.

I came clean on the vest issue.......bricks are useless in my opinion. where kids are concerned. I admitted that my kids were at risk.......they "might" have been safe, but "might" isn't good enough (for me). I owe it to them to *know*.......I owe a boat salesman nothing and he owes me nothing. It is *not* his responsibilty it is mine. Even if legislation stated that he had a legal obligation to advise me, I would still seek, through all avenues possible, as to what is best for my kid's safety. My responsibility and mine only, which is why I don't get out as often as most because I *do* take account of that 40% and I *do* think about the "mights"

I hope I'm not sounding too eavy here and I don't want anybody reading things between the lines that aren't there or see me as preaching, This is about boating and within that "framework" how we all (as individuals) see our resposibilities. I am just stating mine, and no doubt, at sometime in the future, I will fail, as I have in the past. I am just saying that at least I try to see all eventualities and don't leave that responsibilty to others........or blame them

kev

A good exercise for the heart is to bend down and help another up.

[lunar_c]

Kev - you are right.
But if you throw a punch and no one dies you are not guilty of murder.

The difference between 15kn and 28kn is alot more than 40%.
Does anyone know their precise fuel consumption in all possible sea states?
Particularly in conditions that you have never experienced in a particular vessel?

I would like to know how everyone calculates their reserve fuel and what conditions they plan for as a "worse case".

I doubt very many jackets are suitable either.
Look at the label - it will say "not suitable for rough conditions" or similar.
Why would anyone cross Moreton Bay with one?

Everyone has assumed a lot about this guys character and decided they don't like the "cut of his jib".

The only relevant thing is how he prepares for his next trip.
But between a conviction and community services it looks like his kids won't be going fishing for a while.

Ben

[kitty_cat]

he should just buy a bigger boat if he wants to take kids in the bays open waters we all know how bad it can get the right boat no safety risk full stop, out of fuel bad conditions dosent matter nothing major is going to happen ,right boat for kids in the bay is not a open 14 ft tinnie

[bidkev]

:-/

i'm done on this one



Now why is it that I can visualise the calming hand of juicy on your shoulder? ;)

kev

A happy person is not a person in a certain set of circumstances, but rather a person with a certain set of attitudes.

[sf17fisherman]

kev your missing the point i'm makeing

someone goes gets a licence so they can drive thier new tinny they are about to drive
they read the hand book over and over and do the test where it says they only need one PFD type 1 per person

passes flying colours and get their licence

goes pay for the boat and picks it up where they recive 4 or how ever many PFD type 1 covering everyone one board

not knowing about sizes and not being told or advised he gets children sizes takes the falmily out fishing in the river or bay and something happen where now they are in trouble with inproper PFD's

i know i would advise them if i sold them a boat about different sizes but may salemen don't

sure the driver is in trouble and is in the wrong but when your new you don't know everything

and thats the point i'm trying to make
handbook has no mention of sizes in the PFD and salesman don't mention it so how does a new comer find out untill too late

[bidkev]

<snip>

Everyone has assumed a lot about this guys character and decided they don't like the "cut of his jib".

The only relevant thing is how he prepares for his next trip.
But between a conviction and community services it looks like his kids won't be going fishing for a while.

Ben



Mate, you are right and I for one commend you for viewing it from this angle. We all have our own standards and values and are often blinded by our prejudices. I stand by what I say in regard to how *I* view the risk and how he handled it, but yes, you're right, I am judging not only on that, but perhaps (unknowingly) on how I perceive the offender to be.

I work with damaged kids and in some respects have my own baggage from similar damage but I *do* try not to be judgemental, but sometimes that is all we have available to us, particularly when we are angered or see a perceived injustcice. Endangering/abuse/neglect of kids is a very emotive issue and I think that I mayt be guilty of taking this beyond the realms of boating and for that, I apologise.

I suppose the fact that I only saw this guy reiterating that he was a "good father" whilst not actually addressing any other issue *has* clouded my judgement, but as you say, all that matters is that he has learned from it (hopefully). In *every* case of abuse/neglect that I have dealt with, I have never known any abuser admit (initially) to being at fault. It was always, "the drugs made me do it" "I couldn't help it I've had a crap life" etc and I myself have "been there, done that" so really I should know where they're coming from.

We all make mistakes, and we should all be forgiving, but again, we are only human aren't we, so that's a very big ask sometimes. I sincerely hope he *is* an alright guy and that this turns out all ok in the end.

Depite bad publicity, Department of Child Safety do their best in difficult circumstances, with minimal resources so if they are/do become involved in this, I can assure you that they *will* do their best to keep family together and give the bloke a fair go.

Thanks Ben, for cooling me down a little :D

kev

A heavy burden does not kill on the day it is carried.

[Gazza]

Thumps/Kingtin/ssab1....you(s) are pissing in the wind ,on some extreme tangent..... :-/

Back to reality...... TELL ME ,what law did he break ?????
http://www.safeboating.org.au/Equipment/State_Safety_Equipment/index.asp#qld

Is it illegal to "not have enough petrol"....NO
Is it l-a-w to carry (not wear) a pfd1 OR 2...yes
Is it "illegal" if ill-fitting?......NO
Is it "illegal" to be in a boat under 5Mtrs.....NO
was the bay "closed" to boats.....NO

summary: safety equipment breach(pfd).....$150 + court costs

>:( back to your twilight zone....... >:(

calm day......run out of petrol....$3000 fine(wind could blow up)
calm day......flat battery, can't pull start.....$3000 fine(wind could blow up)
http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/qt/MSQ.nsf/ReferenceLookup/s8sw-2brisnth.pdf/$file/s8sw-2brisnth.pdf

[Louis]

He erred.

To err is human.

There was no malice intended.

By all means restitution should be made by him to the rescuing organisations for there time, effort and costs incurrred etc.

But unless he is a very wealthy man--which I suspect he is not. Then the fine was overly excessive in my opinion.



Louis

[ssab1]

gazza...the LAW OF COMMONSENSE..AS FAR AS RUNNING OUT OF FUEL ON THE WATER..THERE SHOULD BE A LAW..akin to reckless endangerment..try asking the boys from VMR ,they might enlighten you of their feeling in regards to these happenings..ie people running out of fuel on the water.happens far to often,40yrs on the water never run out of fuel in any conditions.how about you. RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT IS THE LAW I THINK> alex

[Gazza]

AS FAR AS RUNNING OUT OF FUEL ON THE WATER..THERE SHOULD BE A LAW

Betcha the RACQ guys get pissed off at people running out of petrol ,after they passed about 50? petrol-stations ,before "running-out".......

Betcha Insurance companies get pissed-off ,when people drive their cars ,in a hailstorm ,AFTER being warned by every radio station in town......but they make "a run for it"......

BETCHA...as you agree, there is NO LAW ,regarding carry ample fuel.....
i.e. no law = no fine

soooo , what l-a-w did he break??.....for $3000 ::) ....waiting 8-)

[lunar_c]

I'd like someone to convince me he broke the 1/3 rule as well..

[bigmack]

Guys and Girls - this is bullsh&t really when all the other people who bash, kick, maim, damage other peoples property, steal / repeat offenders, arsonists, drink drivers all get slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again with somewhat smaller fines.

This bloke has been made an example of (political posturing or whatever you want to call it) . People do worse than this in their cars everyday - speeding , endangering their kids lives and others with unsafe overtaking, running lights, cutting people off etc etc etc and what happens to them as unsafe operators of a vehicle ..............ASOLUTELY NOTHING.

Driving murderoulsy on the road is OK - but getting caught out in your boat in bad weather and calling for assistance is punishable by $3K - ridiculous.

IMHO
Phill

[thumps]

Gazza


i didnt make comment on the Fuel ...or the size of the boat

i made no statements on the fact or not if he was unprepared.

my comments were made purely on the fact that he had two small Children...in ill fitting PFD's

and im sick to death of this "she'll be right Mate...as long as me meet the Law in the way of a minimum".

i also made mention of COMMON SENSE......which to me...is fitting and testing a PFD to the child...not simply buying a piece of foam and sticking it in the locker onboard.

IN the State i come from ...it is compulsary for everyone onboard to wear a PFD at all times a boat is underway...and i advocate this....and make mention of uniform State laws.

so before you make twilight zone..and pissing in the wind comments...maybe a little reread might be in order
and dont read between the lines.

i also said that a combination of events lead to the circumstances he found himself in....but the basis for his conviction is with regard to his Kids not having the correct Saftey gear fitted
and as Kingtin states...IT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILTY....and he FAILED...in a reckless fashion...according to the LAW and a Judge



and a man who gets rescued twice in one day because his PWC runs out of fuel cost the rescue teams more than this guy got fined

and i'm Bloody well sure it cost more to rescue him and his Kids as well

IS a CHILDS LIFE WORTH LESS THAN $5000????

i dont bloody think so


IMHO

[bidkev]

Thumps me old mate ;) You've returned to the fray despite the lump on your head getting bigger and bigger [smiley=bigcry.gif] That brick wall will still be standing when we've knocked ourselves unconscious, so let's bale out while we can ;D If it's made a few people think, then that's all that can be expected sometimes.

Juicy..........take him to bed, or take him fishing before he gets *really* exasperated ;) ;D

My final word on this is that yes, the law may be an ass when it comes to sentencing, but just because most sentences for violence etc seem too lenient, that doesn't mean a sentence for endangerment is too stiff. How many times have the public and media screamed for stiffer sentences in order to set an example, and how many times is it said that if someone is found guilty then the *full* force of the law should be applied? Now, just because a fisho is involved, it's *too* stiff. [smiley=shocked2.gif] [smiley=shocked2.gif] What if another vessel (through no fault of it's own) went down with loss of life because the services were too busy with this fiasco? Would you still feel the same then? The mind boggles!



kev

This applies here: Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up.

[Gazza]

IN the State i come from ...it is compulsary for everyone onboard to wear a PFD at all times a boat is underway...and i advocate this....and make mention of uniform State laws.

Which state? Thumbs......t-h-i-s state??....or NOT!!
(and i dont givash!t if in "that state" they carry machineguns in public either)

M8..change hands, if you believe..

my comments were made purely on the fact that he had two small Children...in ill fitting PFD's

you could cruise any school, anyday ,and see mum and a couple of young kids in the back , with "incorrect" seat-belting ,due to babyseats or just plain seatbelt MIS-adjustment..........who can also quite easily run into the back of another vehicle ,crush their radiator ,and require a tow......end-of-story :P

"mum" pays an excess of say $500 ,to fix BOTH cars ,keeps her "no-claim" bonus ,and is real nice to dad for a couple of weeks ;D ;D

p.s. NO ,the kids didn't get whiplash or a serated throat....LUCKY!! ::)

Back-to-reality M8...sh1t happens (yes Kingtin ,even with planning ;))

[rough_shag]

Might as well bung in my 2 cents worth!.Familiarity breeds contempt-the guy was a deckie.We all take risks every day,cars passing strangers head on on two lane rds,flying at 900kmh @ 30000ft in jets,voting John Howard in as PM,cheating on our girlfriends and of course setting ourselves afloat on Moreton Bay-a notoriously dangerous stretch of water!.
More than anything else the most important safety device is a good dose of common sense and reasoning.Bureaucrats and law makers like to think they can control everything with laws and theoretics but in the real world the odds will always catch up with you eventually no matter how many rules,laws or airbags you have!.We all learn by our mistakes and if there's a copper around we pay for 'em too,but this is the human way-no one is perfect and hindsight is a wonderful thing.I reckon there would be plenty of ausfishers condemning this bloke for his mistake who regularly break other laws designed to protect us on a daily basis.
Placing yourself and loved ones in a piece of pressed alloy and floating off into shark infested waters is not exactly a safe practice regardless of how many pfds you have-it could be called an unnecessary risk too. Some people take calculated risks on the water and get away with it and some don't-he didn't and gave us all a reminder to be more careful and use our commonsense but if he hasn't learnt from it then that's another thing.Jace.

[Owen]

All together now
ooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmm
In through the nose - out through the mouth

May as well put my 2 cents in.

Firstly I don't think we can assume a change of heart, or anything else on the fact that he plead guilty.
Lot's of people do that because they can't afford to risk pleading not guilty and risk the costs associated with a conviction under those circumstances.

Secondly, it matters little whether he broke any specific law. As I see it, his primary failing was that he failed to properly execute his duty of care.

I can concede that things may have gone pear shaped for him and that he had not intended to put his kids in danger. If it was a couple of adults with him, then I'd say the fine was a bit steep. However the kids were not old enough to make an informed decision as to their safety during the trip. Therefore it is the parent's responsibilty to ensure that his actions must not put them in harms way.

I agree with Kev. Far too many people are assuming that the world owes them a favour and they shouldn't have to be responsible for their own actions.
It's out of control.

I quite often do safety coarses for fully qualified boilermakers and other tradesmen in which I have to step by step instruct them on how to safely operate an angle grinder, welder or even a chipping hammer.
Their employers are required to ensure that they are aware of this as part of their duty of care.
I find it demeaning to have to stand in front of grown men and have to tell them basic things that they should all know.
The problem is, that we have bread a society that thinks that if they do something stupid and someone didn't tell them specifically that they shouldn't do that, then they have grounds for compensation.

Personally I think we a flying in the face of evolution by saving too many stupid people.
We just have to make sure they don't take the kiddies out with them ;)

cheers,

Owen

[Feral]

Possibly, but PFD1's are pretty uncomfortable for kids to wear, so getting them to keep them on is generally hard.

add that to the list of ineffective, no, lazy parenting quotes.




I take offence at that.

I see no reason to make a kid uncomfortable when it is not required. If PFD1's are not required, there is no need to wear them.

Boating is supposed to be a fun thing for the kids, one of the reasons I did not go fishing for 10 or 15 years after I left home was the attitude my old man had to kids in the boat, he was very much from the old Kids should be seen and not heard, you shall obey my every rule while in my boat school, and fishing with him was nothing short of painful, certainly never enjoyable.

If you force a kid to wear a jacket they find to be uncomfortable, all that will result is a kid that does not want to go fishing, or a kid that tries to slip out of the jacket when ever you are not looking or are busy, which is often the exact time you need the kid securely in the jacket.

The reason there are 3 grades of Jackets, is because each grade of jacket is suitable for the conditions it is rated for. I have nothing against being "safer than required", but only when it does not reduce the enjoyment of the activity you are there for in the first place. I consider it my duty to encourage my kids to enjoy the sport of fishing, not turn them off it.

[CHRIS_aka_GWH]

...as you agree, there is NO LAW ,regarding carry ample fuel.....
i.e. no law = no fine

soooo , what l-a-w did he break??.....for $3000 #::) ....waiting #8-)



The....

Transport Operations (Marine
Safety) Act 1994
Reprinted as in force on 2 November 2005


the principles of which certainly appeared in the booklet I got years ago when I got my licence & basically say....

Safety - General safety obligation

As the fundamental principle of the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) legislation, the general safety obligation transfers the responsibility of safety to owners and operators and encourages risk management. The Act imposes general safety obligations on:


Ship designers, builders and surveyors about the condition of ships.


#Persons involved with the operation of a ship to operate it safely.


#Owners and masters about safety equipment.


All owners and operators, masters and crew members must ensure the ship is:


#Safe.


#Properly equipped and crewed.


#Operated in a safe manner.


In short, these general safety obligations prohibit a ship from going to sea if it is not properly built and maintained, equipped, crewed and operated in accordance with its proposed operating environment.

The Act provides penalties for breach of safety obligations of up to $A37,000 or one year imprisonment. Should the breach cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person, the penalty is up to $A375,000 or imprisonment for two years.


from the Act itself…. (freely available in the public domain,


43 General obligation on persons involved with operation of
ship to operate it safely
(1) A person involved with a ship’s operation (including the
owner, master, pilot and crew members) must not cause the
ship to be operated unsafely.
Maximum penalty—500 penalty units or imprisonment for 1
year.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person causes a ship to be
operated unsafely if the person causes the ship to be operated
in a way that—
(a) causes a marine incident; or # ….

....
Part 11 Marine incidents
123 What is a marine incident
(1) A marine incident is an event causing or involving—
(a) the loss of a person from a ship; or
(b) the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, a person caused
by a ship’s operations; or
(c) the loss or presumed loss or abandonment of a ship; or
(d) a collision with a ship; or
(e) the stranding of a ship; or
(f) material damage to a ship; or
(g) material damage caused by a ship’s operations; or
s 124 64 s 124
Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994
(h) danger to a person caused by a ship’s operations; or
(i) danger of serious damage to a ship; or
(j) danger of serious damage to a structure caused by a
ship’s operations.

One penalty point in Qld is currently $110.

He didn't get the maximum.

[Sportfish_5]

Maybe wearing a life jacket at all times underway is OK in a small tinnie where you can push it off you when you are in the water if it capsizes on top of you - Maybe ::)

But to say in all boats no matter what size you are required to wear a life jacket is ridiculous. Have you actually tried to swim under water with one of the standard jackets on ? I bet not. If a large trailer boat capsizes and you are trapped having them on is a death sentence.

There are certainly better options if you are serious about safety


Ohh - he certainly deserved a fine but if that is now the standard I hope they keep it consistant and start nailing some of the warriors out there with the same type of $$$$


Cheers

Greg

[subzero]

Gidday Gazza, no offence mate... but thank god you aint a pilot, planes would be falling out of the sky left right and centre running out of fuel because you APPEAR not to consider running out of fuel to be all that important ;)

You mentioned and quoted the requirements for Life Jackets from a site, scroll down further, you are wrong, the Jackets must fit correctly.

Lifejacket

A lifejacket for each person on the boat. Choose from these lifejacket standards: SOLAS, COASTAL, PFD Type 1 or the Australian Standards AS1512.
They must be of a suitable size for the people onboard, as an adult sized jacket works very poorly on a child.

From the actual Qld Maritime site states about Life Jackets

Compulsory equipment for all registrable recreational ships


PFD's/lifejackets
One of the appropriate size for each person (12 months and over) onboard, except if a person is wearing an inflatable diver jacket and wet suit.
They do not specify INTENTIONALY sizes of people, they generally specify weights for the intended user. Short of a long story, children grow into their heads, they are disproprtionate to an adult and you will kill your child if you put a small person in a large Jacket, it will turn them face down in the water... no ifs or buts... THATS A FACT!!!

With regards to the GENERAL SAFETY OBLIGATION


All owners and operators, masters and crew members must ensure the ship is:
- Safe.
- Properly equipped and crewed.
- Operated in a safe manner.

In short, these general safety obligations prohibit a ship from going to sea if it is not properly built and maintained, equipped, crewed and operated in accordance with its proposed operating environment.

The Act provides penalties for breach of safety obligations of up to $A37,000 or one year imprisonment. Should the breach cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person, the penalty is up to $A375,000 or imprisonment for two years.

I was active on the Rescue scene untill recently, I am still a member of the unit and actively participate where ever I can.

In all the time I was there, I attended countless flat batterys, run out of fuel's, lost people, helping boats to shelter. I NEVER GOT UPSET WITH THE PEOPLE because of this, as said, we all make mistakes.... BUT HOWEVER... when you are talking 1 adult in a boat doing absolutely everything wrong.... to hell with him...
MR TROY WINCHESTER WAS CHARGED, PLEADED GUILTY TO AND WAS CONVICTED OF UNSAFE OPERATION OF A VESSEL
He was not charged with being lost, (He was not sure where he was apart from between Morton and the mainland) out of fuel, (As I understand it he didnt even make it half way back, thats good judgement on fuel and only just ran out), having ill fitting Life Jackets for his kids, (Which was the shops fault) possibly/probably not having flares (Conveniently explains the lack of flares on the vessel when they were found as he said he let them off but said they werent seen by anyone... yea right... my opinion only though) Why was he singled out and made an example off... I dont believe he was... havent seen or heard that mentioned anywhere except in here...

Why was he charged under the General Safety Obligation "Unsafe Operation Of A Vessel", because he was so far removed from having made 1 or 2 mistakes... he broke practicly every rule in the book and risked those that he should have held dearest to him... he wouldnt accept responsibility for his actions and was a supposedly experienced deckie on a Commercial Vessel who SHOULD have known better than most of the people on this site how to do things the right way... Those that do these things in a proffesional environmeant MUST take responsibility for their own actions especially and should be expected to maintain a higher standard than a rec boater... I am Commercial, I HAVE MADE MISTAKES, WILL MAKE THEM AGAIN, hopefully not the same ones, and certainly not multiple stupid mistakes at once....

If this was a Cop who blew over .5 on a brethyliser you would all be saying good job, he should have known better.., a Commercial Skipper who ran through our fishing lines, a Jet Skier who cut across our bow, a dive boat that pulled up beside us, a Trawler that rapes and pillages the Bay of fish... its shoot the bast@rd, throw rocks at him, cut his lines... F3@k, even meet in a car park and smash his f-n head in and so on... all comments I have seen in here over the last year or so....
BUT GOD PERISH THE THOUGHT, dont fine an absolute blo@dy clown because he is a solo dad who is taking his kids fishing and is being picked on by the Cops and the Courts... Bullsh@t, the bloke got everything he deserved and that is why he plead guilty....

Their are accidents and their are accidents, if your family was killed by a person that lost control in the rain on a greasy surface... you could understand to a certain extent if you know what I mean... if they were killed by some pr@ck racing another car, you would want his balls in a bag. This guy should have handed over the bag if his kids were killed and wether you like to believe it or not, we are only talking about a difference of minute or two in the outcome being different... YES SUPPOSITION, YES GUESSWORK, YES OPINION from me

Comments such as why are the laws harder or any different on the water than on the land speak for themselves, just as the laws for Aircraft are stricter than those for on the water, you cant get out and walk if you run out of fuel etc!!. These laws are put in place to guide those that can not act sensibly, they are desighned to protect the stupid, but more importantly to protect the innocent, especially young children from those stupid people whom are responsible for them....

Thumps, their is not 1 comment from you I find fault with, you are a person whom previously has had to look upon the horror of carnage on the roads caused by stupidity, not by mistakes, to delliver that news to the parents that their kids are dead all being part of the role of all Coppers as they progress through the ranks... I recognise the strong and just beliefs you hold as a result of what you have been through, I further recognise what your wife Juicy would have had to put up with from you on the nights that you came home from a scene, devastated in the horrors of the day that you have had to face and her being their for you if you could bear to bring yourself to talk to her....
AND DONT ANYONE TELL ME, whats this got to do with this topic, this is what some poor Cop could very well have had to delliver the news to the Mother of these kids that had entrusted them with her dick head husband...

OK, fire away.... I am as ready for it as I will ever get I suppose
Cheers Lloyd

[bidkev]

<snip>


OK, fire away.... I am as ready for it as I will ever get I suppose
Cheers Lloyd




Not from me mate. You have recently been applauded and I applaud you further. Anyone who disagrees with what you say need only to remind themselves that is you, and your kind, who picks up the pieces and wjho we rely on when things go pear shape. Good on yer for being a lot more diplomatic than I could ever be.

kev

I asked for strength and life gave me difficulties to make me strong.

[lunar_c]

By participating in this thread, I was hoping that collectively we could work up a rational analysis of the events of that day.

Subzero -
Do you know for a fact that the children were wearing adult size PFD's?
Do you have better information than us as to his location when he received assistance?
If you know that there were no flares - are you aware of any other safety items not present?
Do you recommend that hot flares be dropped in the bottom of the boat after use?
If he was communicating via SMS, how did you conclude that he was lost?
Why are Coastal and SOLAS PFD's available in only one size?

You state "he broke practicly every rule in the book"
For the benefit of myself and anyone else who wants to review their safety preparedness and decision making in light of this conviction - could you be more specific?

You also use the phrase "ill fitting" and "appropriate size".
Do you have a workable definition?

Thanks

Ben

[subzero]

lunar_c, I will reply to your questions tommorrow night when I get home from work as this will take some time to do.
I dont want to take short cuts as people will pick me up on some things not explained fully and take me to task.
I rise at 4am so I dont have the time just now as I had better get some sleep.
Cheers Lloyd

[cooky]

IN the State i come from ...it is compulsary for everyone onboard to wear a PFD at all times a boat is underway...and i advocate this....and make mention of uniform State laws.


you are kidding I hope. I can absolutley guarantee you 110% that if this law is introduced to QLD, a lovely 5.4glass boat (mine) will be listed for sale the next day - I'd want to get in early before all the others. If I get wrapped in cotton wool anymore in this country I don't know what i'll do.
I like using my common sense and the laws, etc are one of the main causes for the decay of common sense (something or someone will tell me what to do surely).

Oh and I have two kids that haven't ever been in my boat (3 and 1.5yrs) because my wife believes it's too dangerous for young kids in a boat. Does that mean that her opinion is that everyone else who does is reckless? I'm hoping to change this soon - bought the flash lifejackets the other week.

[thumps]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200511/1519316.htm?gippsland

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17733750%255E3462,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/tragedy-thats-turning-the-water-safety-tide/2005/10/14/1128796710125.html

http://www.safeboating.org.au/Equipment/Life_Jackets/index.asp

[Gazza]

Hi Subzero, as you know 'Thumps' is WRONG in even suggesting PFD's "must" be worn at all times in Q'ld ;)
(although you didn't pick this up, it's o.k.)

the other issue, was if 10L of petrol was given, was there an incident?
(i take it ,by your post, he intentionally expected to run out of petrol 1/2 way and get a "top-up"...on purpose ,to me hard to believe that was his intent)

Subzero.....prac. test 4 U ;)

How many times does VMR?/water-police when they do a safety-equip. "check", make the occupants put on their PFD's to ensure errrrrr....correct fit!!!

you know ,i know....it's e.g. 3 boaties, and a 1,2,3 pfd's counted ,with seeya mate ,have a nice day.

do you ever do a petrol "check" ??? at the pin , to ensure every one makes it back to JW or CT pt or what if they launched from carbrook??

Have U failed in a "duty of care" ....of course you haven't ;)
Mate ,you guys do an excellent job ,but unfortunately it's to get people out of the sh!t ,not to prevent shit happening.

p.s. Mods ,please delete picture if any offence is taken ,out-of-context.

Gazza.....top gunnnnnnnn- aaahhhhh ;) ;D

[thumps]

ABC news QLD

Deaths trigger call for mandatory life jacket use
Thursday, 24 November 2005. 13:47 (AEDT)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 12:47 (ACST)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 12:47 (AEST)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 13:47 (ACDT)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 10:47 (AWST)

A dinghy accident at Sarina that claimed the lives of a father and his daughter has prompted the Australasian College for Emergency Physicians to call for life jackets to be made compulsory.

[Gazza]

Gazza...my most humble apologises to you....i can only learn from your greatness..and hope to change my ways to see the real world as you so eloquently put things. :) :) :) :)

Accepted ;D ;D ,and just remember a good cop ,if out of his depth, backs off ,and calls for backup!! ;D ;D

:P
Enjoy your fishing mate.
Regards
Gazza

[Gazza]

" Boy falls off bike ,run over by car"

Let's bring-in rollcages for bicycles..... ::)
how far do you go....??....?? [smiley=curtain.gif]

[Jeremy]

ABC news QLD

Deaths trigger call for mandatory life jacket use
Thursday, 24 November 2005. 13:47 (AEDT)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 12:47 (ACST)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 12:47 (AEST)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 13:47 (ACDT)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 10:47 (AWST)

A dinghy accident at Sarina that claimed the lives of a father and his daughter has prompted the Australasian College for Emergency Physicians to call for life jackets to be made compulsory.

what is the relevance of this? What would the Australasian College of Emergency Physicians know about boating safety?

Jeremy

[thumps]

Kingtin


am i correct in this definition?


"TROLL"
There are individuals who visit chat rooms and deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments in order to bait others into responding. In chat room parlance, these individuals are called trolls.

[bidkev]

Kingtin


am i correct in this definition?


"TROLL"
There are individuals who visit chat rooms and deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments in order to bait others into responding. In chat room parlance, these individuals are called trolls.

It's a simplistic one, but yes. IMHO, Trolls normally "cast a wide net" though, and try to ensnare as many folk as possible. They are invariably intelligent enough to put their agenda without stooping to bringing things down to a personal level, so I don't think anyone is trolling here ;) ;D

I'd let it go mate, If I was you. We've been harping on a bit now. Remember the last time two blokes did that? ;) ;D Turned out alright though, eh? ;)

kev

I don't believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

[cooky]

These days recreational boaters are proud of their safety gear, they show off their safety gear as part of their boat and they see it as an essential part of their recreational boating experience."
He said such a culture was vital in a state that had seen a rapid rise of boat ownership and more people on the water.

Exactly - "since mandatory introduction of helmets, racing harnesses, and rollcages in ALL vehicles, he said that deaths and serious injuries have reduced significantly"

Wrap us in more cotton wool please. try and introduce rollcages, 3 point harnesses, etc - you'd have an uprising "comfort, looks, expense, etc". I see wearing Lifejackets at all times the same way. Might be okay in tasmania for extra warmth, but apart from the general discomfort of wearing one, I'd love to think how friggin hot it would be in QLD, NT, WA, NSW. In North Queensland we'd have more people dying of heat exhaustion.


Deaths trigger call for mandatory life jacket use

Of course it would. "Broken arm triggers call for ban on Rudgy League from Australasian College of people against loading the medical system up anymore until we can import more overseas health practioners and supply & demand ratios are better, but all dangerous sports need to be re-introduced at this point because demand needs to outstrip supply slightly because we're all enjoying our new found financial success and I really like the idea of a nice 42ft Black Watch"

[Gazza]

;)
More petrol-bowsers at Moreton Is.
Rangers to carry petrol supplies ;D

[finga64]

I have been reading this debate and had some laughs, some deep thoughts, had some opinions but I have kept quite (mainly for the 'cooks' sake)
But crikey, who does this guy think he is??







Possibly, but PFD1's are pretty uncomfortable for kids to wear, so getting them to keep them on is generally hard.

add that to the list of ineffective, no, lazy parenting quotes.




I take offence at that.

I see no reason to make a kid uncomfortable when it is not required. If PFD1's are not required, there is no need to wear them.

Boating is supposed to be a fun thing for the kids, one of the reasons I did not go fishing for 10 or 15 years after I left home was the attitude my old man had to kids in the boat, he was very much from the old Kids should be seen and not heard, you shall obey my every rule while in my boat school, and fishing with him was nothing short of #painful, certainly never enjoyable.

If you force a kid to wear a jacket they find to be uncomfortable, all that will result is a kid that does not want to go fishing, or a kid that tries to slip out of the jacket when ever you are not looking or are busy, which is often the exact time you need the kid securely in the jacket.

The reason there are 3 grades of Jackets, is because each grade of jacket is suitable for the conditions it is rated for. I have nothing against being "safer than required", but only when it does not reduce the enjoyment of the activity you are there for in the first place. I consider it my duty to encourage my kids to enjoy the sport of fishing, not turn them off it. #







Mate, I hated to wear undies when I was a kid but my parents made me. THANK GOD THEY DID.
When compulsory wearing of seat belts came in I hated them. My parents made all us kids wear one. THANK GOD THEY DID.
Many kids probably hate wearing helmets but we make them. Kids hate homework, but we make them do it. Some examples may be in legislation, some may not. Doesn't really matter does it if THE REQUIREMENT IS LAW OR NOT, if it can protect and give benefit to your child???
The examples go on and on. Every kid that gets in my boat bungs on a jacket. If they don't they know they stay home. Simple.
I do relax this simple rule when the child is old enough and mature enough the be able to fend for themselves a bit. But any kids from 2-7 that's the rules.
Get them used to wearing a jacket. Bit late floating around the ocean and your kid says "I don't like this dad, it's uncomfortable"
If you force a kid to wear a jacket they find to be uncomfortable, all that will result is a kid that does not want to go fishing, or a kid that tries to slip out of the jacket when ever you are not looking or are busy, which is often the exact time you need the kid securely in the jacket.
This bit really doesn't make sense. If you have to look to see if your child has their jacket on and try to think 'where did he/she put it' then my friend it maybe too late to be of any benefit to them. The skipper MUST feel confident in the fact that the people on board under the skippers care are indeed as safe as possible at all times and know what to do if and whenever something adverse happens. Things can happen quick in a boat. Putting jackets on kids may just not be as quick as it seems, let alone finding and putting your own jacket on.

Damn, some people just don't realise what they have in their kids. Others would give anything to be able to be called a parent..
Sorry fella's but this really strikes a nerve with me.

Bet this guy also parks illegally just so his kids don't have to walk an extra 150m to school. Same mentality.

[Gazza]

If you force a kid to wear a jacket they find to be uncomfortable

Mate ,i have the sit-on type *oops* but legal.....& handy :-[
As skipper, i would only expect them to wear if i deem 'necessary' ,i would NOT recommend continuously ,as if your shit scared, wear them in the bath for all i care ,and some will ::)

To "the" Kens and Barbies ,with designer clothes kids....GOOD ONYA ;)

I'll have enough petrol(i think?) and legal sit-on PFDs (i know) ,but if i get in the sh1t....i'll ask how much ,and do you give discounts for Ausfish members......dinkum 8-)

[CHRIS_aka_GWH]

so it seems Gazza now at least agrees with the legislation. The duty of care lies with the ships master to prevent sh!t happening err... an incident ....


Have U failed in a "duty of care" ....of course you haven't #
Mate ,you guys do an excellent job ,but unfortunately it's to get people out of the sh!t ,not to prevent sh!t happening.



As skipper, i would only expect them to wear if i deem 'necessary' ,i would NOT recommend continuously ,as if your sh!t scared, wear them in the bath for all i care #,and some will #...

he just confuses sh!t scared with prepared.

Be prepared & have the little guys prepared that should you NOT be in the boat with them, then they have the best chance of survival. That's not scared, that's responsible - like having them sit in the back seat of a car, cooking with a little iodized salt. Give them their best chance until their shift is their own.

As a parent & the ships master you are the custodian of their wellbeing not the owner of it.

[PinHead]

By participating in this thread, I was hoping that collectively we could work up a rational analysis of the events of that day.

Subzero -
Do you know for a fact that the children were wearing adult size PFD's?
Do you have better information than us as to his location when he received assistance?
If you know that there were no flares - are you aware of any other safety items not present?
Do you recommend that hot flares be dropped in the bottom of the boat after use?
If he was communicating via SMS, how did you conclude that he was lost?
Why are Coastal and SOLAS PFD's available in only one size?

You state "he broke practicly every rule in the book"
For the benefit of myself and anyone else who wants to review their safety preparedness and decision making in light of this conviction - could you be more specific?
You also use the phrase "ill fitting" and "appropriate size".
Do you have a workable definition?

Thanks

Ben

If I was subzero I would not respond to that..I would not leave myself open if anything does go awry. It is the boat operator's obligation to ensure they are fully aware of all safety requirements, weather, tide etc etc etc...this may or may not be a legal obligation but it sure as hell is a moral one for the safety of himself/herself and all others on board.

As for the wearing of a lifejacket...my 4 year old grandson MUST have his PFD1 on before I move the boat...my rule..no one elses but one I adhere to.

A lot of conjecture here on what he had/ did not have, what he did/ did not do...the only real way of knowing the basis he was fined on is to read the court transcript..what the prosecution stated to the court..without that we are only guessing.

[sf17fisherman]

ABC news QLD

Deaths trigger call for mandatory life jacket use
Thursday, 24 November 2005. 13:47 (AEDT)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 12:47 (ACST)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 12:47 (AEST)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 13:47 (ACDT)Thursday, 24 November 2005. 10:47 (AWST)

A dinghy accident at Sarina that claimed the lives of a father and his daughter has prompted the Australasian College for Emergency Physicians to call for life jackets to be made compulsory.


of what this bloke did or didn't do as with all these cases we just don't know all the facts but onto this

i'm with thumps here ( :o gunna hails tonight ;D) not law in nsw yet however i will be when i can afford to buy a few of the stormy sea self inflating vests however the ones you can deflate and reinflate via a mouth peice (that way if your knocked out you may be lucky, if your traped under the hull you deflate to swim out and reinflate so you may be lucky)
best things with these are they are slim lined and can be worn all day long without getting too hot with them or them getting in the way

i'm starting to think that haveing something like this on whist on a boat all the time is a good thing as with may of these incedents have shown us when this go wrong they go wrong very quickly and no matter how prepared we are we just don't have the time

[Panasonic]

interesting topic
but i think you might find this interesting with your mention of NSW

http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/useequip.html

Lifejackets

Approved lifejackets, must be carried on board every vessel unless exempt. Lifejackets are the most important piece of safety equipment on any vessel and must be in a good condition and accessible. Penalties will be imposed on the owners and masters of vessels found not carrying them or occupants not wearing them as required.

Lifejackets are compulsory to wear when crossing coastal bars.

[sf17fisherman]

interesting topic
but i think you might find this interesting with your mention of NSW

http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/useequip.html

Lifejackets

Approved lifejackets, must be carried on board every vessel unless exempt. Lifejackets are the most important piece of safety equipment on any vessel and must be in a good condition and accessible. Penalties will be imposed on the owners and masters of vessels found not carrying them or occupants not wearing them as required.

Lifejackets are compulsory to wear when crossing coastal bars.
was awear of all that however only compulsory when crossing a coastal bar
what we are talking about in wearing at all times of movement to the extent of all the time while on the water

even with a lifejacket in a accessable spot do you think you could grab one if all of a sudden you was fliped over or a steering link broke and you found yourself parting with the boat? ;)

[Panasonic]

sorry i misread a little, i guess i was making the point that according to a few of the previous peoples comments, Victoria Tasmania and NSW all have compulsory life jacket laws of some kind
also with the calls for their usage in QLD by members of the medical proffession i think we can see a move towards their introduction on a wider scale
South Australia are also looking at it from a political view
i know the Greens arent a nice topic, but they have power
http://www.sa.greens.org.au/mr.php?mr=100
i also read somewhere New Nealand is doing the same thing
maybe with this latest fine things may change.

[cooky]

even with a lifejacket in a accessable spot do you think you could grab one if all of a sudden you was fliped over or a steering link broke and you found yourself parting with the boat?

hmmmm - let's protect ourselves from EVERY single potential cause of death or injury. next all boats above 4m will have to carry a liferaft or two just in case the first one doesn't work. Mandatory attachment to the lifejacket will be speargun or similar for shark protection. Sometimes your luck is just up. If you want to wear lifejackets at all times then that's fine and sensible, but don't wish it on everyone else. Not everyone uses a boat for transport or fishing - it's the enjoyment of boating. Next all boats able to travel over 25kts all crew will have to wear helmets, wetsuit, lifejacket, seperate EPIRBs. You may think this sounds ridiculous, but no more so than your suggestion of mandatory lifejackets.

[cooky]

You may think this sounds ridiculous, but no more so than your suggestion of mandatory lifejackets.

I forgot to say "IMO"

[sf17fisherman]

cooky i understand what your say and thats fine but with somefishing i thinkti would be a wise move

it isn't as much as wrapping ourself in cotton more about makeing my boating and fishing more safe so i can come home to my family
if my boating is safe and problem free then i have enjoyed it

the PFD i'm talking about are them slimlined easy wearing ones
weight is next to nothing
size is nice and compact and smaller than a singlet you may wear
eand easy of them is fool proof

many people by rod staps to strap their hundreds of dollors worth or game rods in and yet think nothing for them selfs

[lunar_c]

If I was subzero I would not respond to that..I would not leave myself open if anything does go awry. It is the boat operator's obligation to ensure they are fully aware of all safety requirements, weather, tide etc etc etc...this may or may not be a legal obligation but it sure as hell is a moral one for the safety of himself/herself and all others on board.


I should wait for subzero to respond but..
He stated that rules were broken.
Whether they be regulations or "unwritten law of the sea", I think it's reasonable for him to nominate what rules they are.

As for being fully aware of the weather, surely you don't mean that we are obliged to make perfect forecasts when professional meteorologists from the Bureau make no such claim?



A lot of conjecture here on what he had/ did not have, what he did/ did not do...the only real way of knowing the basis he was fined on is to read the court transcript..what the prosecution stated to the court..without that we are only guessing.


I have made contact with the water police and prosecutions.
Basically as a member of the public, it's none of our goddamn business what they think happened.
To go any further I will have to make a Freedom of Information request.
As he pleaded guilty to the charge, there is no court transcript either and the basis for the charge would probably have not been read out.

I have also made contact with Channel Nine and requsted a copy of, or images from, their footage taken of the "rescue"
The shot taken of the two boys in their lifejackets should be very instructive..

Ben

[cooky]

cooky i understand what your say and thats fine but with somefishing i thinkti would be a wise move

it isn't as much as wrapping ourself in cotton more about makeing my boating and fishing more safe so i can come home to my family
if my boating is safe and problem free then i have enjoyed it


yeh mate, understand your position 100% and have absolutely no problem with it. It's just not my idea of boating in our area. Maybe in a more unpredicatable region or when seas or area unfamiliar then I might have to investigate the jackets you speak of. It is nice to feel safe, hence the reason I'd love to upgrade to something like a fisher or similar with floatation, airchambers, etc - almost unsinkable. Just don;t see why someone wiht a safe boat would have to by law wear one. Prefer education and decision by choice.

[PinHead]

If I was subzero I would not respond to that..I would not leave myself open if anything does go awry. It is the boat operator's obligation to ensure they are fully aware of all safety requirements, weather, tide etc etc etc...this may or may not be a legal obligation but it sure as hell is a moral one for the safety of himself/herself and all others on board.


I should wait for subzero to respond but..
He stated that rules were broken.
Whether they be regulations or "unwritten law of the sea", I think it's reasonable for him to nominate what rules they are.

As for being fully aware of the weather, surely you don't mean that we are obliged to make perfect forecasts when professional meteorologists from the Bureau make no such claim?



A lot of conjecture here on what he had/ did not have, what he did/ did not do...the only real way of knowing the basis he was fined on is to read the court transcript..what the prosecution stated to the court..without that we are only guessing.


I have made contact with the water police and prosecutions.
Basically as a member of the public, it's none of our goddamn business what they think happened.
To go any further I will have to make a Freedom of Information request.
As he pleaded guilty to the charge, there is no court transcript either and the basis for the charge would probably have not been read out.
I have also made contact with Channel Nine and requsted a copy of, or images from, their footage taken of the "rescue"
The shot taken of the two boys in their lifejackets should be very instructive..

Ben


Oh I was not aware that they did not read out the charges if you plead guilty...that could be fun..toss in a few other charges for some fun. All items spoken in a court of law once that court is sitting is recorded...the prosecution would have read the charges and then the defendant pleaded guilty and the magistrate would then have issued the penalty..this would all have been reported.

In my opinion, I really don't care what his penalty is...he did not defend the charges therefore he is guilty....completely in the wrong.

[lunar_c]

Oh I was not aware that they did not read out the charges if you plead guilty...that could be fun..toss in a few other charges for some fun. All items spoken in a court of law once that court is sitting is recorded...the prosecution would have read the charges and then the defendant pleaded guilty and the magistrate would then have issued the penalty..this would all have been reported.


Of course the charge is read out.
As the charge is not contested, there is no "discussion" of the reasons for the charge, and there is no "transcript" of the proceedings.
As told to me by an officer with police prosecutions today..

[lunar_c]

In my opinion, I really don't care what his penalty is...he did not defend the charges therefore he is guilty....completely in the wrong.

And how do you plead PinHead?
Are you willing to risk your house, your boat, access to your kids, and the fact that respected members of ausfish will TYPE YOUR NAME OUT IN CAPITALS like a common criminal to defend your decision, as captain of your boat, to fit your passengers/crew with PFD's that you decided would keep them safe and comply with the legislation?


A precedent has now been set for "appropriate size".
None of us know what it is.
That is the point of this thread - IMHO

Ben

[Derek_Bullock]

Oh I was not aware that they did not read out the charges if you plead guilty...that could be fun..toss in a few other charges for some fun. All items spoken in a court of law once that court is sitting is recorded...the prosecution would have read the charges and then the defendant pleaded guilty and the magistrate would then have issued the penalty..this would all have been reported.


Of course the charge is read out.
As the charge is not contested, there is no "discussion" of the reasons for the charge, and there is no "transcript" of the proceedings.
As told to me by an officer with police prosecutions today..



Hi

Just a few comments on Magistrate Court process and yes I have prosecuted matters.

You wait outside court until your name is called.

You go into the court and the charge is read out.

You plead guilty or not guilty

If you plead guilty the circumstances are read out by the prosecution (sometimes only a brief outline but something is always stated) in order that the Magistrate knows why he is making a decision.

You or your solicitor, if you have one, get the opportunity to comment #

The Magistrate hands down his decision.

# At times it is not uncommon for the Magistrate to pronounce you guilty first and then ask for comment from you or your solicitor before he hands down his decision.

Your comment As the charge is not contested, there is no "discussion" of the reasons for the charge is incorrect.

Cheers


Derek

[lunar_c]

Thanks Derek
Like I said, merely repeating what I was told.
So there should be some publicly available record with more than just the charge stated?
Will investigate further.

[Derek_Bullock]

There will be a police prosection brief but I doubt you will get hold of it as they are not public records.


Derek

[subzero]

Firstly I appologise for the delay in getting back to this thread. Yesterday was a day of major upheavel at home with the wife having a bit of a medical emergency and major problems at work with staffing issues to cap it off.

Pinhead, thanks for the advice, appreciate it :)

I will reply to Gazza first, as that is the easier, especially at the speed I type.


Hi Subzero, as you know 'Thumps' is WRONG in even suggesting PFD's "must" be worn at all times in Q'ld
(although you didn't pick this up, it's o.k.)
Without thouroughly re-reading the post, I dont think Thumps said it was mamdatory in QLD which of course it's not.


the other issue, was if 10L of petrol was given, was there an incident?
(i take it ,by your post, he intentionally expected to run out of petrol 1/2 way and get a "top-up"...on purpose ,to me hard to believe that was his intent)
I didnt say he did run out of fuel intentionaly, I questioned his judgement. In the 7 years of operational work, I never once ran out of fuel, nor did any other vessel I was on. This involved some very long and involved searches and also towing some very large vessels in heavy weather. Sometimes the results acheived were not those requested but were determined by conditions and fuel usage. Changes have been made in route to meet fuel demands including departing from search patterns before becomming part of the problem, not the solution.

Subzero.....prac. test 4 U


How many times does VMR?/water-police when they do a safety-equip. "check", make the occupants put on their PFD's to ensure errrrrr....correct fit!!!
As commercial operators we were originally told that sa part of shipboard drills we were required to perform fortnightly Fire, Flood and abandonment drills. This was a little difficult as normally rosters are attended once monthly. As a result Qld Tpt Maritime division gave us an exemption and insisted this was completed every 2 months by each roster. During these times, they were done to that level, which included fitting of the jackets and retrievals from the water if safe to do so. Further our jackets are inspected each Roster at the beggining thouroughly, in the pm checks they recieve a cursory check, on the sunday this was completed again. With the Stormy Seas PFD's they were also sent away for 6 monthly inspections and we have recieved in turn certificates as to their suitability as is required. To my knowledge this is still being done on each and every Roster by each and every member.


Have U failed in a "duty of care" ....of course you haven't
Mate ,you guys do an excellent job ,but unfortunately it's to get people out of the sh!t ,not to prevent sh!t happening.
Have I failed in my Duty of care? Yes I have, will no doubt do it again. I have said over and over again, everyone makes mistakes, I hope I learn from mine aqnd I hope I dont make so many mistakes at once that I become such a risk to others that this determines I need to be prosecuted. Not all work place incidents are prosecuted, generally they tend to be the ones where they were ignored or extremely serious. (I am a certified WHSO so I am very conversant with this area).
As for the last comment, I appreciate the praise you bestowed upon Rescue Personal, but if you were meaning it is not the Role of VMR Rescue Personal to educate, then you are wrong, one of our roles is to educate and promote water safety. This can be found in our constitution if you would like to have a quick squiz here http://www.vmr.org.au/index_files/vmrvpconstitution.pdf It was also in the VMRAQ's (Parent body) site somewhere.


p.s. Mods ,please delete picture if any offence is taken ,out-of-context.
Ah the picture, loved the picture, at first I thougt this was in relation to my comment about fire away, and it probably was ;) I thought that little speck was me in your sites, then I noticed the words... I do enjoy a good laugh and when I inspected the picture closer I saw the little words. :o ;) ;D Very good

I hope this answers your questions

Cheers Lloyd

[PinHead]

In my opinion, I really don't care what his penalty is...he did not defend the charges therefore he is guilty....completely in the wrong.

And how do you plead PinHead?
Are you willing to risk your house, your boat, access to your kids, and the fact that respected members of ausfish will TYPE YOUR NAME OUT IN CAPITALS like a common criminal to defend your decision, as captain of your boat, to fit your passengers/crew with PFD's that you decided would keep them safe and comply with the legislation?


A precedent has now been set for "appropriate size".
None of us know what it is.
That is the point of this thread - IMHO

Ben



I have adult PFD1's on board my boat...I also have a child's PFD1 for my grandson (sized accordingly and changed as he grows)...I do not take any other children on board as I do not have the appropriate safety equipment for them...do some people have a problem buying the correct clothes to fit them??? It really is not that difficult to use some common sense and act accordingly.

"Court reporters
The court reporter records the court proceedings word for word. New technology now enables court reporters to record proceedings on a computer or on audio equipment.

In the Court of Appeal, proceedings are also recorded on video."


Ben..the above excerpt is from the Qld Govt website

[Gazza]

How many times does VMR?/water-police when they do a safety-equip. "check", make the occupants put on their PFD's to ensure errrrrr....correct fit!!!
As commercial operators we were originally told that sa part of shipboard drills we were required to perform fortnightly Fire, Flood and abandonment drills. This was a little difficult as normally rosters are attended once monthly. As a result Qld Tpt Maritime division gave us an exemption and insisted this was completed every 2 months by each roster. During these times, they were done to that level, which included fitting of the jackets and retrievals from the water if safe to do so. Further our jackets are inspected each Roster at the beggining thouroughly, in the pm checks they recieve a cursory check, on the sunday this was completed again. With the Stormy Seas PFD's they were also sent away for 6 monthly inspections and we have recieved in turn certificates as to their suitability as is required. To my knowledge this is still being done on each and every Roster by each and every member.

Hi Subzero ,thanks for your time and trust wife is o.k......

Mate ,with regards to "checking for fit" i was primarily referring to rec boaties , at the ramp ,calm days ,etc. i.e. not an "emergency day" , but the boatie ,once his PFD(s) were only "counted" in a SAFETY CHECK, they could still be the wrong type or weight supported ,and be the next guy in similar circumstances ,as in this topic.

Pinhead alluded that he does have a kids PFD , i don't !! , but if i came across some overturned boat with kids treading water, i would deadset ,not think twice in providing a mansize PFD

I don't think Pinhead would either, but i couldn't just be sooo PoliticallyCorrect ,and not offer assistance ,because ....sorry kids.....wrong size...vrrroom ,ain't in the dictionary.

The guy did things wrong i.e. guilty(nobody in this topic has ever said scott-free innocent), but jmo, $3000 is wayyyy over the top.

p.s. have never run out of petrol , err had the 20L "tilted" once or twice :-[
but i won't say(with all the best intentions)..."I never will" ;)

[subzero]

Gidday lunar_c, first I will answer your questions

Do you know for a fact that the children were wearing adult size PFD's? I have read and re-read my post, I cant see anywhere that I said his children were in adult life jackets. As has been reported, they were in ill fitting jackets. I have not elaborated here because you ask for more information in your last question so I will do that there.


Do you have better information than us as to his location when he received assistance? No I dont. Like you I have attempted to clarify initial media reports. One of the initia media reports stated that he was found just off Moreton Island. They did not mention just of Shornecliff, Redcliff, Nudgee, Deception Bay or anywhere else. To me just of Moreton probably means just of Moreton. No I dont believe everything I read, hear or see in the media, but generally initial reports tend to be the most accurate...


If you know that there were no flares - are you aware of any other safety items not present? No I dont know that their were no flares. I do know that as the person was apparantly trained on a commercial vessel then shipboard safety relating to flares and their usage is taught and plays a key role in all safety programs. They should never be let off unless you feel that you have a high probability of being seen. The supply of flares are limited.
I quote myself here

possibly/probably not having flares (Conveniently explains the lack of flares on the vessel when they were found as he said he let them off but said they werent seen by anyone... yea right... my opinion only though) I have bolded my last comment, I did this because I had not heard this, read this, seen this or anything else. It may very well have been an unfair comment by me as yes, he may have had them. This comment I regret having put in as it may have been unfair, but not so secretly now, it was one of my thoughts.

Do you recommend that hot flares be dropped in the bottom of the boat after use? Certyainly not. Another reason why I regret the above comment, although I think it unlikely, it is possible that some people may consider that they should save their used or missfired flares. I do not recomend this at all. I stand corrected if anyone seriously gained this impression

Why are Coastal and SOLAS PFD's available in only one size?. Jesus, you got me here. This is why I like this site. You live and learn from others. I thought, this guy cant be right, I spent many hours trying to find Coastal or Solas Jackets in any size throughout the world in anything other than adult. Thank you for teaching me something I DIDNT KNOW :-[ However, getting back to this subject, and I really dont want have to read the whole lot of posts again, I DONT THINK, anyone including myself mentioned that they should be wearing Coastal or Solas Jackets. These are generally regarded as being for Commercial Vessels.

You state "he broke practicly every rule in the book
My sources to date are no different than yours.
It was reported via media that, he ran out of fuel, that the children either did not have appropriate or ill fitting Jackets, that he had no navigation equippment and therefore could not direct the search Hellicopter to him, he set forth in a vessel unsuited to the conditions at the time for the size of the vessel he operated which went from 3.9 to 4.4 and then if I remember correctly 4.2m in the final report after his conviction. I refer to my earlier quote taken from the MSQ site


With regards to the GENERAL SAFETY OBLIGATION
Quote:

All owners and operators, masters and crew members must ensure the ship is:
- Safe.
- Properly equipped and crewed.
- Operated in a safe manner.

In short, these general safety obligations prohibit a ship from going to sea if it is not properly built and maintained, equipped, crewed and operated in accordance with its proposed operating environment.

The Act provides penalties for breach of safety obligations of up to $A37,000 or one year imprisonment. Should the breach cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person, the penalty is up to $A375,000 or imprisonment for two years.

I cant really answer this one any better than that other than to say that as a Mariner his overall performance was extremely poor,as a parent he did not treat his kids safety with the level of responsibility that I and most responsible parents would expect. This is my opinion and I dont intend to elaborate on this point further other than to say, we have car seats forced upon us to protect undersized children from parents who dont do the right thing and try to place them in oversized seatbelts.... and before anyone asks I have no intention of going and looking up legislation as to what is the appropriate size for a car seat ;) :-X

You also use the phrase "ill fitting" and "appropriate size".
Do you have a workable definition? No I dont. Nor does the Governmeant here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, better rephrase that, anywhere else that I have found. I was surprised to see the same phrases used in the USA etc when searching for different sizes in Coastal or Solas Jackets, which of course their arent.
I refer to my earlier quotes
A lifejacket for each person on the boat. Choose from these lifejacket standards: SOLAS, COASTAL, PFD Type 1 or the Australian Standards AS1512. Quote:
They must be of a suitable size for the people onboard, as an adult sized jacket works very poorly on a child.


From the actual Qld Maritime site states about Life Jackets

Compulsory equipment for all registrable recreational ships

Quote:
PFD's/lifejackets
One of the appropriate size for each person (12 months and over) onboard, except if a person is wearing an inflatable diver jacket and wet suit.

They do not specify INTENTIONALY sizes of people, they generally specify weights for the intended user. Short of a long story, children grow into their heads, they are disproprtionate to an adult and you will kill your child if you put a small person in a large Jacket, it will turn them face down in the water... no ifs or buts... THATS A FACT!!!

The only place I mentioned anything as being fact is above, and that is a fact, other things are quoted from official sources and therefore should also hopefully be fact... I would like to think that MSQ at least has a rough idea of the important stuff :)
As far as Life Jacket sizings, I cant really see how they would define it, by weight is in reality the only way for them to be defined reasonably and that is how they base it.
Here is a nice Life Jacket site with a full range which look pretty good to me.
http://www.safetymarineaust.com.au/pfd1.html
Now as I see it, you are at total loggerheads with me and that is fine, it would be a pretty boring old world if we were all to agree. This topic has been good for everyone, it has made a lot of people stop and think. To me, thats what it's all about.
I have opinions and am entitled to them, as are you. I dont agree with some of your statements/opinions, such as this one

Make that over equipped - he had a phone It may not be mandatory to carry radio's but I fail to see how this could be interpretted as over equipped... no need to reply, he wasnt required to have one so therefore he was overequipped... thats fine, thats your opinion.

In conclusion, if Troy had been out by himself or with people old enough to make decisions for themselves... so be it... however, these were 2 little kids who trust their daddy implicitly.... standards have to be better...

I hope this answers all your questions, unless I really have to, I wont be responding further to this post. I have a hell of a lot to do in preperation for VMR tommorrow and am a very slow typer.
This post is so long I am not even going to bother re-reading it so I hope I havent opened myself up to more prolonged replys.
BTW, something I wished I had done now, which I usually do on the topical subjects but forgot on the other one is to say
THIS IS MY OPINION :-[ :-X ;) :)
Cheers Lloyd

[Gazza]

Compulsory PFDs "with parachute" for JETTIES!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D
:P
http://www.officeclips.com/clips/20.wmv