Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 72 of 72

Thread: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

  1. #61

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    A couple of corrections there sf17 fisherman. There can be no donation in these cases that are tax deductible as they are purely "Fee for Service" no matter how you might want to dress it up'

    If you want to avoid paying towing fees join your local VMR group and you will get no charge or little charge. If you called out the RACQ if your car broke down and you wern't a member it will just be a matter of get out the cheque book or credit card.

    Emergencies like you quoted will cause activation of the police who will activate the VMR group and their activation will be covered by the police.

    The VMR money doesn't grow on trees and the subsidy from the government for running cost is poor so then the orginisations have to fund raise and have membership fees to pay for the difference. There would be no way a commercial operation could compete with volunteers on a cost basis.

    VMR groups have now been banned from carrying fuel other than in their vessel fuel tanks so if you run out of fuel you have only one choice from VMR and that is a tow.

    Another thing I have been recently made aware of that Marine safety board in QLD are now taking a hard line approach to incidents and with the example you gave you could possibly end up in court defending your actions.

    Go down to your local VMR and get a membership form and be a member treat it the same a RACQ membership. If you can afford the boat you can afford the membership it is cheap insurance.

  2. #62

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros
    A couple of corrections there sf17 fisherman. There can be no donation in these cases that are tax deductible as they are purely "Fee for Service" no matter how you might want to dress it up'

    If you want to avoid paying towing fees join your local VMR group and you will get no charge or little charge. If you called out the RACQ if your car broke down and you wern't a member it will just be a matter of get out the cheque book or credit card.

    Emergencies like you quoted will cause activation of the police who will activate the VMR group and their activation will be covered by the police.

    The VMR money doesn't grow on trees and the subsidy from the government for running cost is poor so then the orginisations have to fund raise and have membership fees to pay for the difference. There would be no way a commercial operation could compete with volunteers on a cost basis.

    VMR groups have now been banned from carrying fuel other than in their vessel fuel tanks so if you run out of fuel you have only one choice from VMR and that is a tow.

    Another thing I have been recently made aware of that Marine safety board in QLD are now taking a hard line approach to incidents and with the example you gave you could possibly end up in court defending your actions.

    Go down to your local VMR and get a membership form and be a member treat it the same a RACQ membership. If you can afford the boat you can afford the membership it is cheap insurance.

    i'm already a duel member to my vmr and donate most of my money set aside to charioties to my VMR unit and apart from them the only other that get my money is lifesavers australia (surf life saveing)

    IMHO i would be offended if i had to go to court for a accedent that was no one fault

  3. #63

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    Quote Originally Posted by Mantaray
    so was this chappy actually breaking any laws? there's quite a few parallels that can be drawn from this one or is it just because it's a jet ski?


    he didnt break the law

  4. #64

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    Quote Originally Posted by Panasonic
    [quote author=Mantaray link=1134982573/45#52 date=1139663515]so was this chappy actually breaking any laws? there's quite a few parallels that can be drawn from this one or is it just because it's a jet ski?


    he didnt break the law[/quote]

    Oh yes he did....he had a mobile phone and an epirb. He did NOT have flares, Vsheet, signalling device, navigational equipment.....all required for operation in beyond smooth water

  5. #65

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs


  6. #66

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    maybe i need to be pointed in the right direction on this one.

    all i can find on PWC's is the need for the correct PFD and an epirb if you travel more than 2 klms outside partially smooth waters.

    he had an epirb

  7. #67
    MulletMan
    Guest

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    I dragged a Boatie back three times in two days from VMR Vicky Point so it isn't always Jetskis!
    He had a flat battery the first time, jump started it, went out, didn't recharge it enough and got towed back from Peel Island by us.
    Came back next day with it "fully charged" - yeh!
    Same as above but this time from Coochy.
    During the above we suggested to him that his Starter Motor was very (as in very) hot with smoke coming off it during the starting process.
    Yep, sure enuf, get a call from Peel that he can't start the outboard. The starter motor had seized.
    Very common to pull Boaties back a couple of times in very quick succession with fuel, batteries and electrics usually the cause.
    And of course a depressingly high number of them didn't have radios anyway - the old mobile phone trick!

  8. #68

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    I just checked again .....if it is registerable boat he needs the safety equipment

    the flares and V sheet are mandatory, not the navigational equipment, that is "suggested"

    But why would any sane person go 60km offshore without a handheld GPS which can be bought for $200??

  9. #69

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    Quote Originally Posted by fish2eat
    But why would any sane person go 60km offshore without a handheld GPS which can be bought for $200??
    He goes fishing 60k offshore on a jetski, why would you think he is sane.

    This idiot will kill himself one day.
    Its a pitty he already has kids , we don't want people like that breeding.

  10. #70

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    Quote Originally Posted by fish2eat
    I just checked again .....if it is registerable boat he needs the safety equipment

    the flares and V sheet are mandatory, not the navigational equipment, that is "suggested"

    But why would any sane person go 60km offshore without a handheld GPS which can be bought for $200??


    doesnt read that way to me

    Safety equipment
    Safety equipment is dependent on where you are travelling. All PWC operators must wear the correct personal flotation device (PFD) at all times.

    - PFD type 2, 3 or a wetsuit with inbuilt flotation approved as PFD type 3 in smooth water limits.

    - PFD type 2 in partially smooth and offshore water limits.

    If you travel more than two nautical miles offshore, when beyond smooth and partially smooth waters, you must carry an Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB). PWC travelling at night or at times of reduced visibility must show navigation lights - side lights and either an all round white light or a stern light.
    http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/qt/msq.nsf/index/msq_pwc

  11. #71

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    fined $750 ,and you(s) wonder why i spewed at the ridiculous $3000 fine on a rec boatie spitting distance from brisbane in partially-smooth waters > >

    http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...5E2765,00.html


  12. #72
    bidkev
    Guest

    Re: Jetskier rescued TWICE in 24hrs

    Quote Originally Posted by Gazza
    fined $750 ,and you(s) wonder why i spewed at the ridiculous $3000 fine on a rec boatie spitting distance from brisbane in partially-smooth waters #> >

    http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...5E2765,00.html

    This probably illustrates the magistrate's role in "appropriate sentencing". The discrepancy in the sentences could be based on the magistrate's view of the defendants.

    One was simply an idiot endangering his own life........a 750 buck fine indicates to me that the magistrate didn't consider the endangering of the rescue crew's lives.

    In the other case the magistrate more than likely took into account the fact that the bloke endangered hsi kid's lives and should've known better having 8 yrs experience on a trawler. There may also be the factor that the court wasn't convinced as to the mans honesty as he stated that he had set off flares but there was no packaging on the boat to prove that this was so.

    kev

    Wife: "There's trouble with the car. It has water
    in the carburetor."

    Husband: "Water in the carburetor? That's
    ridiculous."

    Wife: "I tell you the car has water in the
    carburetor."

    Husband: "You don't even know what a carburetor
    is. I'll check it out. Where's the car?"


    Wife: "In the pool."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us