Brother-in-law fined by waterways

[Kerry]

Finga, Then the happy chappy needs to go and read his Transport regulations, "aground" is the wording, you are then not at anchor or made fast to the shore, you are "aground" by definitation and hence NOT underway.

[FishMarket]

It does sound harsh what has happend but if you carry any safety equipment on your boat then it must be in suitable condition. Sounds as though he was fined for having too much rather than not enough. I wonder if a car carried two spare tyres and one was bald, would you still get a ticket?????

[Lucky_Phill]

Many factors would have to be taken into account to answer your question, Ron.

Did the officer have a day hair day,

How did the young fella respond to being questioned ,

What was the content of the conversation,

Further, if, as you said , he bought the boat from a dealer, how long previous was this purchased ? a week and I'd be hitting the dealer up for something, a year, nope, he's on his own.

For my opinion.......... harsh.

I have been pulled up many times by the BP ( boating Patrol ) and never recieved a fine. Safety gear is always good and I know the rules, but I probably have 25 plus years on the young fella.

I totally agree with the sentiments above, write to the person in charge and state your case.

Phill

[finga]

Finga, Then the happy chappy needs to go and read his Transport regulations, "aground" is the wording, you are then not at anchor or made fast to the shore, you are "aground" by definitation and hence NOT underway.

Yep, your right in my books.
The happy chappy must have been a bit off that day or my explaination was off.

[NAGG]

G'day all,

My young brother-in-law has just copped an $80 fine from the waterways (NSW Maritime now) which I feel may not be justified, so thought I'd ask opinions on here, to see if he has a case.

He has an older tinnie, licensed for 4, which is kitted out with what he thought to be legal, and was fishing close inshore for flathead.

He was approached by a waterways patrol, who checked his gear, and informed him that 2 of his lifejackets were unsuitable and the other 2 just borderline.

He was fined $80 for this, which to a young lad like him is quite a lot.

My question is this:-

He had 2 jackets which were deemed ok, albeit just, but still ok, and he was only in the boat himself, so why the fine?

I always thought the rules were you had to have one for every person onboard? so he only needed 1 then?

In my opinion I thought he would only need 4, if 4 people on boat? So I'm thinking he should go to local office and complain.

Interested in opinions on this one, also he bought the boat 2nd hand from a dealer with this safety gear in it, why did dealer not advise him to purchase new stuff?

He realises the safety issue and will buy new ones but I feel hes been a bit hard done to, and a warning / advise to replace would have done easily.

Rgds

Ron

Something seems amiss here .... I don't know what though ! ...... If it was because he was only carrying 2 PFD1s (& the boat capacity was 4) I better go & throw the other two into my boat .... As I only fish 1 or 2 However I still only thought that you needed to carry 1 for each person on board ! NAGG

[BLOOEY]

Harsh get his money back!

[Max Gerkin]

finga,
what authority fined him for having expired flares if he had in-date flares on board??????????

[Dignity]

mmm! hopefully the young fella has written in and explained the situation and had the fine waived. Slim hope but feel for him, I carry out of date flres and some of my old life jackests (those not marked pfd1) aborad as they are better than the current crop on the market. I do keep any expired flares and LJ's in a totally separate compartment on the boat only because of such behavior by those who can (and only very occassioanly because of a bad hair day) do.

Was at the loacal chandlery a couple of days ago and a bloke was buying new cylinders for his inlatable jackets as he was fined for having " xxxxxxx equipment", missed part of the conversation so not sure what exactly was said. He asked the chandler re expiry dates and it seems there was none but the rust marks were enough to get him a fine. Any metal inside a damp sleeve is likely to get rusty and I think the guy was hard done by as it was quite obveriously only surface rust. Guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.

finga - love your theoreticals - keep them coming

[bootyinblue]

Finga, Then the happy chappy needs to go and read his Transport regulations, "aground" is the wording, you are then not at anchor or made fast to the shore, you are "aground" by definitation and hence NOT underway.

'WITHOUT PREJUDICE'

Gee, Kerry I really am dreading correcting your 'factual information' in this thread as I am sure there will be repercussions of some sort coming my way as a result.

However, the term aground is not correct in any way shape or form.

A vessel is in one of 3 states. Berthed or secured to a bouy mooring (something other than the ships own anchoring system), anchored or underway. There is no such thing as 'aground'.

This is very important when it comes to operating or 'in charge' of a vessel while under the inflence of alcohol or a drug. But that is not for this thread.

And yes before you ask for prove to substantiate my information, I am able to forward you more PDF files of current legislation than your could read in 1 night.

For the others,

There are a great many hypotheticals posted on here, including an intersting one about car seat belts. Great analogy, but doesnt fit. I am more than happy to give legal interpretation on situations if anybody requires it, aslong as its not too far fetched!

More than happy to supply correct, factual information for the mutual benefit of all Ausfishes.

[joeT]

I wonder if a car carried two spare tyres and one was bald, would you still get a ticket?????

I think technically you would. In Qld, you don't even need to carry a spare, but if you carry one, and the tyre is bald, then you can get a ticket.

Back on topic, I think the brother in law was a bit hard done by and should write a letter of appeal. Technically, he was probably technically liable for a fine (for carrying the substandard lifejackets) but if the officers exercised some reasonable discretion a warning would have probably been enough. We don't know the context of the situation perhaps he was unco-operative and got on their bad side during the encounter, or they were just in a bad mood.

[seatime]

However, the term aground is not correct in any way shape or form.

A vessel is in one of 3 states. Berthed or secured to a bouy mooring (something other than the ships own anchoring system), anchored or underway. There is no such thing as 'aground'.

More than happy to supply correct, factual information for the mutual benefit of all Ausfishes.

Hi booty,

the current regulations mentions "aground". The Collision Regs, Rule 3 (i), General Definitions - refers to "aground". I'd be interested in which regs you are referring to.

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Home/Safet...on_regulations

http://www.frli.gov.au/ComLaw/Legisl...t30-4+of05.pdf

cheers
Steve

[PWCDad]

As far as the copper goes .... what goes around in life usually comes around.

The young guy was just fishing for flathead. He boat was registered, he was licenced, the boat, to the best of his ability was legal in every way.

He wasnt peddling E tabs at a night club, he wasnt doing 240 k's on the M1 with two girls in the back, he wasnt breaking windows of the cars at the boat ramp.

Gimme a break ! Whats wrong with these modern coppers !!!!!!

What goes around will come around ...

The squeeky wheel gets the oil ... write the letter, good luck ! I'm sure they will waive it if you do ...

Regards
PWCDad

[Far side]

An interesting thread
With respect to safety equipment
If I have to go in the water or one of my crew (family) then I will ensure that my safety gear is functional in regs. Anyone would find the pain an anguish of losing a loved one or mate to drowning because ther PFD didn't work unbearable. if I have to miss out on a few weeks fishing so I can afford to buy the correct equipment then so be it the other alternative is unacceptable.

On another note HUTchwilco Inflatable Pfd's need to be inspected every 3 years this can be done by the boat owner and as long as this is documented on the PFD this is deemed acceptable (this is what I have been told by the manufacturer) I am not comfortoable so will send them in for inspection in three years. for commercial Its every year.

[breamnut]

G'day all,

My young brother-in-law has just copped an $80 fine from the waterways (NSW Maritime now) which I feel may not be justified, so thought I'd ask opinions on here, to see if he has a case.

He has an older tinnie, licensed for 4, which is kitted out with what he thought to be legal, and was fishing close inshore for flathead.

He was approached by a waterways patrol, who checked his gear, and informed him that 2 of his lifejackets were unsuitable and the other 2 just borderline.

He was fined $80 for this, which to a young lad like him is quite a lot.

My question is this:-

He had 2 jackets which were deemed ok, albeit just, but still ok, and he was only in the boat himself, so why the fine?

I always thought the rules were you had to have one for every person onboard? so he only needed 1 then?

In my opinion I thought he would only need 4, if 4 people on boat? So I'm thinking he should go to local office and complain.

Interested in opinions on this one, also he bought the boat 2nd hand from a dealer with this safety gear in it, why did dealer not advise him to purchase new stuff?

He realises the safety issue and will buy new ones but I feel hes been a bit hard done to, and a warning / advise to replace would have done easily.

Rgds

Ron

if he is fishing outside of the mouth he needs to have a pfd 1

[Lovey80]

What a crock! I wonder if that same copper got picked on at school!


Gel dont worry about the Cheif Inspector of Explosives. If your old flares explode ill eat my hat!!!

Cheers Chris