| This is what I'm on about!
Sorry it's a long read!
(From most recent backward to original email from me!). Quote:
From : (Name removed by me to protect idiots identity)@nmsc.gov.au>
Sent : Friday, 18 November 2005 8:16:46 AM
To : "Shann Low" <shann_low@hotmail.com>
Subject : RE: NSCV Part C - Section 6A & 6B - Stability
Hello Shann,
Thanks for your considered and detailed reply. Unfortunately, at the
risk of adding to your cynicism, the solution you're looking for with
respect to licensing the types of fishing charters you can operate is
outside the scope of both the USL Code and our strategic operation which
is confined to safety. Having worked in the system, I'm sure you're
aware of the lines of delineation.
What I can do is ensure your comments on the subject of stability are
presented for consideration.
Best Regards
(Name deleted by me to protect Idiot's identity)
Project Manager
National Marine Safety Committee Inc
T: (02) (Deleted by me to protect idiots identity)
T (Direct): (Deleted by me to protect idiots identity)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message transmission (including any
accompanying documents) may contain information which is confidential
and or privileged. As a result if you are not the intended recipient,
any dissemination, copying or action taken in reliance on the contents
of the message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the message.
Views expressed in this message are those of the sender rather than the
National Marine Safety Committee (NMSC) unless the content of the
message indicates to the contrary.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shann Low [mailto:shann_low@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2005 5:30 PM
To Name Removed by me to protect idiots identity)
Subject: RE: NSCV Part C - Section 6A & 6B - Stability
Dear (Name Removed by me to protect idiots identity),
Many thanks for your reply.
Yes - please feel free to cut n paste my reply anywhere you think it's
appropriate as stated before.
Thanks indeed for explaining the system - I understand exactly what your
saying.
I sadly, remain a cynic, because while the system described may approach
being 'perfect' - people often aren't, and they control the system all
the way up the tree!.
People sadly have political agenda's, axes to grind and so forth and
various allegiances / departmental dogma's often see a 'perfect system'
thwarted.
Sometimes - (probably more often than not) it's not the public servants
like yourselves who do the thwarting. You see - we have a two party
political system. And that system has caucus rooms, party hacks and
numbers men etc - who all do deals on behalf of who ever's pocket they
are in. (People within industry, do pay donations to the parties - and
in return allegiances are owed). Even Departments like your own,
sometimes have particular dogma's reflecting the desires of staff who
may not want the onerous task of enforcing a new rule and this sometimes
colors, how the process works. So - while the system you describe might
be pretty good, often the final outcomes leave a lot to be desired in my
experience (and common sense rarely gets a look in).
Please excuse my cynicism, I was once a career public servant probably
much like yourself. (18 years). After having testified in the supreme
court against the deputy premier of the State, and sending a couple of
my work colleagues to jail for official corruption, I came to realise
that no system is perfect, as long as people are involved in
administering it.
Being a whistleblower cost me that exemplary public service career.
I believe - after my experience, that my own cynicism is entirely
justified. Many others can't comprehend where I'm coming from. My advice in that respect - is first - walk a mile in my shoes, (that way - you'll have a
one mile head start - and a free pair of shoes!) 
There is no justice in Australia. That's just a fact of life today - we
allowed it to be stolen out from under us - the very thing all those
fine Australian soldiers gave their lives for in all the world wars
fought, is today gone. Sadly, it would take many more good men than You
& I to change that (Name removed by me to protect idiots identity).
That said - I believe it behooves us to at least participate, even if
people involved within the system MAY occasionally thwart common sense
outcomes.
I frankly will believe in the system you describe (name removed by me to protect idiots identity) (and thus the people involved in administering it all the way up including the Govt. ministers) on the day I can legally take someone fly fishing for bonefish in Shark Bay
- in a 18 ft Hewes Bonefisher, on a charter tour. Until then I'm afraid
- your apparent belief in the integrity of your system and people
administering it is - until proven otherwise....not to be trusted (by me
at least).
I've been hammering away at this topic with the WA State Govt. Ministers
for Transport, Fisheries and Tourism, not to mention the State Transport
Marine Safety division for probably 10 years now. I still can't do the
tours I've been wanting too - for 10 years. Yet I have illegal -
unlicensed (In WA) trout fishing guides from Tasmania, dragging their
freshwater tinnies over to WA in their winter season and conducting
illegal charter fishing tours for Bonefish - at Exmouth!!!.
When I mention this to the enforcement authorities - paid for by my
Charter license fees, they don't want to know!
I've held law enforcement powers, I know - the unwritten rules of the
game (Name removed by me to protect idiots identity), I've seen deals done between Public Prosecutors & Queens
councils - to get their family members off charges (that I was bringing
against them) by having them dropped, in return for plea bargaining
deals on other (more serious) cases.
Heck - I've seen state sanctioned murder. Ours today is a police state.
The trick (name removed by me to protect idiots identity), in such a situation (as Marie Antionette once famously
said), "is to keep your head while those around you are losing theirs!".
I have about $20,000 a year in up front compliance costs for various
tiers of govt instrumentality's (public liability insurances, survey
fees, Fishing Charter license fees and so on and so forth) - who between
them can't police the legislation they already have to keep the illegal
operators out, and at the same time, have legislation that prevents me -
the licensed, qualified, insured operator from conducting such tours.
Frankly - I think I'm justified in my cynicism (Name removed by me to protect idiots identity).
I hope you realise - it's nothing personal, it's just 10 years of
frustration going broke waiting while the "system" you describe, can't
deal with something so simple that works everywhere else in the world.
Most of the public servants I come across when faced with the dilemma I
describe - all grab out their book of acts and regulations - and find 10
different reasons why I can't do something so simple - that is done
under ostensibly the same Uniform Shipping Law Code rules everywhere
else in the world. It's too easy to find excuses for why things can't be
done, and yet not find even one common sense way things CAN be done.
If you truly want me to believe in this system you describe (Name removed by me to protect idiots identity) - write to me when I can conduct my Fly Fishing tours for Bonefish in Shark Bay - in a state of the art designed and built 'Bone fishing' boat imported from the USA. It's done everywhere else under OUPV rules (Operator Un-inspected Passenger Vessel) USL Code.
It's not so hard, someone just needs to exercise some common sense.
Common sense sadly is not such a common commodity these days.
A wise man once said - "the reward of patience - is patience!".
Personally - I think he should have been garroted at birth! You can
probably tell - my patience with this issue ran out years ago.
Surprise me (Name removed by me to protect idiots identity), - find a solution to the Dilemma I've posed for you
under the existing code or even the proposed new draft code.
Yours Most Sincerely,
Shann Low
FromName removed by me to protect idiots identity) @nmsc.gov.au>
To: <shann_low@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: NSCV Part C - Section 6A & 6B - Stability
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:30:55 +1100
Hello Shann,
Thanks for your comments on the draft(s), they, along with the
consideration you've put into making them is appreciated. I can advise
that the RIS is also now available on the NMSC website. It is also
posted there for comment and we'd be pleased to receive any comment you
may have on that document.
I'll include this comment for consideration as a comment originating
from you regardless of whether your organisation picks it up as well,
if that's OK with you.
At the risk of repeating what you may already know, let me advise about
our process at the NMSC so you understand exactly what will happen with
your comment.
All comment is considered by a reference group made up of
representation as well balanced to include all stakeholder sectors as
we can achieve.
This group is presented with all comment, verbatim as it is received,
taken from the forms provided and inserted into a copy of the draft so
that it can be reviewed directly against the text the comment is
directed towards. General comment is usually placed at the start of the
document.
Once the recommendations resulting from the comment are agreed and in
place for presentation to the Committee, only then is the comment
'summarised'. This is done to consolidate where a number of people make
the same comment and also to depersonalise comment to protect the
privacy of the people commenting. The latter point is especially
important as the summary of comment, along with the recommendations of
the review group, does become a public record that is published by the
NMSC.
The reason we provide the comment sheets is to assist the commenter to
more easily direct the comment to the particular part of the draft to
which the comment is intended (for instance a comment regarding
stability categories may be directed to the clause where they are set
out whereas a comment about the suitability of criteria associated with
an individual stability category would be set against the clause
containing that criteria). This tool also helps us at the NMSC and the
reviewers to better understand the intent of the commenter and identify
what part of the document is being commented upon. As you may have
noted, there is also accommodation for general comment.
This comment sheet is not the NMSC's invention. It is based on that
used in the development of Australian Standards and is derived from the
format used internationally by all ISO based standards bodies. We too
must fill in the same forms when commenting on the development of other
standards associated with the marine sector.
I'll present your comment directed to those parts of the draft where it
can be identified. Otherwise, if it appears to be a comment of general
principle, I'll include it in the general comments area.
Best Regards
(Name removed by me to protect idiots identity)
Project Manager
National Marine Safety Committee Inc
T: (Removed by me to protect idiots identity)
T (Direct): (Removed by me to protect idiots identity)
F: (02) (Removed by me to protect idiots identity)
WE HAVE MOVED - From 1 May 2005 NMSC will be located at:
Level 5, 9-13 Young Street, Sydney NSW 1225 PO Box R1871
www.nmsc.gov.au National Register of Compliant Equipment:
www.nmsc.gov.au/nrce
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message transmission (including any
accompanying documents) may contain information which is confidential
and or privileged. As a result if you are not the intended recipient,
any dissemination, copying or action taken in reliance on the contents
of the message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the
message.
Views expressed in this message are those of the sender rather than the
National Marine Safety Committee (NMSC) unless the content of the
message indicates to the contrary.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shann Low [mailto:shann_low@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2005 1:27 AM
To: NMSC Secretariat
Subject: NSCV Part C - Section 6A & 6B - Stability
Dear Sirs,
Please find below - my thoughts with regard to your proposed/ draft new
stability code under the USL code.
My thoughts are a copy of what I have just sent in this regard to my
CBOOA WA (Charter Boat Owners Association, Western Australia)
secretary, Mr XXXXX XXXXXXX for the industry here in WA to choose to
make comment, individually or as an group - if they so wish.
I am sorry - that being just a 'layman' Charter Boat skipper and not a
naval architect - for whom the format of the code seems to be written,
that my comments aren't submitted in the "public comment word document
format" you have provided on your website and in which form I'm sure
you would prefer them.
To be frank, i wouldn't know where each of my comments was supposed to
go - in the format you require them.
I feel tho - that I'm entitled to have a say anyway...and that indeed
it really is YOUR responsibility - to decide where each of the comments
best needs to be fitted into the new draft code, moreso than mine.
Feel free to cut and paste my comments - where you best think they fit
if you must - however - I am concerned that in doing so - the import of
what I think and have to say would be largely lost.
My experience so far with Govt Dept Public comment processes (with our
state govt dept's here in the west) - has largely been, that someone
within the dept will usually/often "summarise" a submissions content,
and report to the committee - what they think they want to hear, or
gloss over / delete / deliberately fail to mention, whatever content
doesn't fit the current exisiting departmental dogma at the time - and
so I have little real faith in the public consultation process anyway
having seen this happen so often.
That said - your still getting my input, regardless, - so what you do
with it is up to you!.
My comments to my association are reproduced herewith below for your
info and use.
Yours sincerely,
Shann Low
Flywest Charters
P.o. Box 9
Nannup WA 6275
Ph/fax 08 97 561207
email shann_low@hotmail.com
copy of email follows:-
xxxxx xxxxxx
Secretary CBOOA WA
Charter Boat Owners & Operators Association of W.A.
xxxx@iinet.net.au
Dear XXXX,
Many thanks for allowing me to join your organisation.
Also many thanks for speaking to me recently on the phone with regard
to the two issues of Rock Lobster Draft resource Alocation under IFM
principles - and new Draft vessel survey stability issues.
Please find below, details of the Vessel Survey / Stability issue - I
stumbled across recently, which could probably be of interest to some /
all of your members, with regard to proposed new vessel survey &
stability criteria.
I will forward to you under separate cover soon - my thoughts about the
rock lobster resource allocation issue. For now - I submit my thoughts
about the proposed new draft survey regulations we discussed that you
mentioned might be of interest to your members.
While not a naval architect - I do have an interest (as probably most
of us do) in vessel construction and design, and a particular interest in
vessel stability issues for survey and passenger carrying capacity.
It has come to my attention, that the National Marine Safety Committee
of Australia is reviewing intact stability standards for domestic
commercial vessels in Australia.
A draft of the new standard has been prepared and is currently
available for public comment. It can be viewed at
http://www.nmsc.gov.au/yoursay_2.htm.
A test based on the US Category T test has been used by Australian
jurisdictions for 25 years quite successfully. However, as part of the
review process, the Category T test has been removed.
I am not yet aware of the rationale behind the change. Hopefully that
might be explained in a Regulatory Impact Statement apparently to be
posted on the website this week.
Some changes have been proposed for Category S which also would have
relevance to Category T if that were retained. These include raising
the assumed weight of passengers from the current equivalent of 46kg
(for Category S) to 75 kg per person for all classes of service.
(Bold & Underline is My emphasis).
In an earlier draft that retained Category T, it was proposed to
calculate the passenger moment on the basis of lateral centre of
gravity rather than B/6, assuming a distribution of 4 persons per m2 in
the worst lateral location.
I believe that one reason why the simplified criteria are being
reviewed, is that, as an alternative to simplified criteria, stability
may be calculated using comprehensive stability criteria (i.e.
Rahola-IMO type criteria).
However, the anomaly arose that a vessel would frequently pass the
simplified criteria and fail the comprehensive criteria.
This is inconsistent with logic.
Comprehensive criteria should be the better measure of the vessel's
characteristics and, if anything, the margin of safety should be built
into the simplified criteria. The result of this anomaly has been that
simplified criteria is often preferred BECAUSE IT WAS EASIER FOR THE
VESSEL TO PASS than the comprehensive criteria. My understanding of
simplified criteria is that they are intended to reduce the cost of
measuring compliance, rather than the cost of achieving compliance. An
analysis of the reason for the anomaly showed that the assumed
passenger heeling moments were frequently very different, those for
Category S and T being much less.
The proposed change to Category S means that the passenger moments are
calculated in the same way for both simplified and comprehensive
criteria, meaning that we are at least comparing apples with applies.
Participants in the CBOOA WA organisation may wish to comment on the
draft stability standard and the regulatory impact statement. I believe
the cut-off date for comment is 10 January 2006.
Comments on the draft standard from participants in the CBOOA WA, would
I imagine, be most welcome, notwithstanding that we might be located on
the west side of the Australian pizza.
There is really no technical reason why safety should differ across
borders. Variations in safety outcomes between countries or individual states of the same country - are usually largely the result of differences in
community expectations, politics and economics or sometimes, just a
plain ol' mess up in how the same supposedly 'Uniform' rules are
sometimes 'applied' by different (well meaning) authorities (trying to
cover their own ample butts!).
Public comment received on the draft standards is collated and reviewed
by a reference group comprising both industry and government
representatives. The members of the reference group are chosen for
their expertise in the content of the particular standard and hopefully
bring to the process an understanding of Australian community
expectations and economic considerations. They make recommendations for
changes to the draft to the National Marine Safety Committee, which
comprises the chief executives of the various Australian Marine
Authorities. The NMSC's function includes an awareness of political
objectives and issues. So persons making public comment from within the
whole Australian marine industry arena need not be concerned that they
might be remote from such issues.
Public comment that provides good technical input and logic will make
its mark.
Members of the CBOOA WA might be interested in a presentation that was
made at the Interferry 2005 Conference that was held in Greece in
October. A White Paper has been prepared by the DnV Passenger Vessel
and High Speed Craft working group on behalf of Interferry proposing
the development of an international standard for domestic ferries. The
White Paper will be submitted to IMO for its consideration. Details of
the presentation can be viewed at:
http://www.interferryconference.com/.../ThunesPpt.pps
My own albeit limited understanding of stability testing issues /
metacentric heights / GZ curve righting levers etc - after reading the
relevant sections of the new draft regulations, leads me to think -
that basically - vessels currently passing a standard incline stability
test (- with the nominal 46 kilo passenger weight), which might reasonably
now hold for example a 12 + 2 x 1C or 2C survey, - might end up having
that passenger carrying capacity basically HALVED, under the NEW
proposed 74 Kilo standard incline test passenger weight proposal???
Anyone more qualified than me, please feel free to correct me in this
regard, if I've interpreted the document incorrectly!
How will such a proposed change affect members of our industry?
Is it an issue we know enough about to make constructive comment?
Are vessels that are now currently deemed "safe" in stability terms for
paying passengers and have been so for many years - now suddenly going
to be deemed "Unsafe" at the stroke of a beaurecrats / academics pen,
under the new proposals with their existing passenger payloads?
Perhaps - the CBOOA WA organisation - should/could engage the services
of a naval architect to advise (in advance of the draft being accepted)
what the likely impact will be on our industry?. Perhaps likewise, we
could / should be retaining the services of someone so qualified - to
make constructive comment on our behalfs?
Should the Govt be giving us research grant funds to retain the
services of someone qualified in naval architecture, to study the
likely charter industry social impacts and make comment BEFORE the
closing date for submissions (or indeed be extending the closing date
for submissions) so we can do this ourselves?
Will - the authority proposing the new draft regulations (NMSC)
(National Marine Safety Council) - be allowing for $$$ "compensation"
for business' so affected by the changes as to make their bottom line
non - viable? (I.e Buying back the vessels / and licenses of members
they put out of business with the new legislation)?
These are probably all good questions - and no doubt members might have
a better knowledge of this issue than me, and so be better positioned
to make constructive comment on our behalfs?
I look forward to reading / hearing what members think - the new
proposals might mean for their own vessels - and current operating
peramaters and fiscal viability.
From me - as an aside - BUT still related to this same Draft USL Code
comments issue:-
A comment, that comes to mind from my own investigation of this issue
(and affects the light tackle / sports fishing (Fly Fishing) charters -
that I carry out is this:-
Lack of uniformity between states / nations under the USL ("Uniform"???
Shipping Law) code is putting us at an economic disadvantage to members
in other states and nations in the same industry.
This is actually against the Australian constitution, ie, it is an
unconstitutional state law!
The Australian constitution (from memory) states something along the
lines that, - "No Commonwealth member state parliament - can enact a
state law, that puts a participant in any industry at an economic
disadvantage to fellow members of the same industries in fellow
states". (Or legal-speak to say essentially the same thing!).
The USL Code basically isn't uniform at all, in specific regard to the
carrying out of charters of 6 or less people.
In the USA - there is a class of vessel survey, commonly referred to as
a "six pack license" (meaning a charter in a vessel with 6 or less
occupants) and officially called an OUPV survey (Operator Un-inspected
Passenger Vessel).
What this class of charter basically is, is a coxswains level of
qualification - who can purchase ANY brand of recreational vessel,
licensed to carry 6 or less passengers, and start work as a charter
service without having the vessel inspected for survey (as the OUPV
name implies!).
Once capacity gets above 6 passengers - basically the same strict
standard of survey / incline stability tests is invoked, as we
currently have here with DOT Marine Safety division in Fremantle and as
we are hopefully going to comment above on the new draft code.
The upshot of this "anomaly" within the supposedly "Uniform" shipping
laws, is that a very large charter / guide, fly fishing / light tackle
sports fishing charters industry, exists in places like the Floridah
Keys, Bahama's, Mexico, Venuzwaler (sp?), that CAN'T Exist under the
same "supposedly "Uniform" shipping laws applied here!
The fishing activities are carried out in low freeboard, specially
designed, state of the art built - flats fishing vessels, (designed to
have little to no wind heeling effect) that run in 4 inches of water or
less. They can also can be pushed along silently with a long carbon
fiber pole, from an elevated platform above the outboard, in shallow
water on flats such as exist in WA @ places like Shark Bay and the Gulf
at Exmouth.
We in Western Australia, cannot have such an industry. (Despite the
fact if anyone fell out they would get their feet wet up to their socks
rather than drown!)
The state of the art US designed & built vessels - just can't pass our
'archaic' (in this respect) survey rules.
I don't believe, that - the proposed 'new' draft rules, will in fact
solve this existing dilemma at all in their current form.
We have a world class light tackle sport fishery resource - in the form
of the flats at such locations as I've described, and yet - we don't
have ANY real industry that fishes such places. Usually - they are
classed as bad places to go - in our deep draft charter boat fleet.
(Because the tide goes out and deep draft vessels get stuck until the
next tide!)
The ONLY way such water can be legally accessed, by charter operators,
is thru having a mother ship - operation, with clients fishing from
un-surveyed 'tender' vessels. (tin dingys) (I.e - by bending the
rules!).
This raises the question - why do Fisheries Dept issue a class of
Charter License FTOL, for vessels less than 7.5 meters (The equivalent
of the US 6 Pack / OUPV vessel survey class) when Marine Safety branch
don't have a corresponding class of survey to allow operation of such
vessels within WA waters (Other than E class surveys for strictly
inland lakes / rivers & estuaries?)
Yes - I understand that the WA coastline is an unforgiving place, BUT
we do have a FEW "protected" or semi protected, and shallow waters -
ideally suited to such an industry with the appropriate fishery
resource waiting to be "exploited" for tourism purposes.
Lastly - while no professional can service this sector of the industry
- we have the anomalous situation - where, under the same supposedly
"Uniform" Shipping Law Code, any visiting tourist - with no ocean-going license or experience, from any country in the world - can dry hire a basically
recreational standard vessel and go to sea in our state....despite any
associated risks to himself, passengers or those in the commercial
sector who might be called upon frequently to go rescue such poor
souls.
There is in my opinion at least, a large & potentially lucrative
charter fishery resource / tourist sector income earner, being
basically totally ignored in WA. That same industry flourishes
elsewhere in Australia and the rest of the world - because of basically
beaurecratic bungling with regard to the USL code and it's application
in WA by the Marine Safety branch authorities mean it can't happen
here.
They rightfully claim, that their hands are effectively tied, by the
West Australian form of the USL code, enacyed by our parliament here,
under which they have to operate, which isn't at all "Uniform" as it's
name implies it should be, with the international code and how it is
enacted / enforced within other states of Australia and other developed
nations like the USA .
It's my opinion - that the proposed new draft regulations should
seriously address these issues, and yet at a brief reading of the new
draft - the issue seemingly doesn't get a mention?
It may not affect a large number of the CBOOA WA Membership - but I
know of a few very good industry recognised, international standard
fly fishing guides, (i.e potemtial CBOOA members) who have left the
industry in WA (For other states like Queensland) because they just
can't get past marine safety branch failure to address this issue here
in WA despite our written requests them and the respective ministers to
do so.
I would like to see the CBOOA WA organisation address these issues in a
formal submission if possible, on the proposed new draft regulations,
if the rest of the membership agree of course.
Yours sincerely,
Shann Low
Flywest Charters
Nannup WA 6275
08 97 561207
shann_low@hotmail.com
15.11.05
|
There you have it all!  
Cheers!   |
11-27-2005, 08:36 AM
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
