You are invited to comment on the draft amendments to the Maritime Rules, Part 90, Pilotage. The basis for Part 90 is found in section 36(1) (i) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.
Background.
The existing maritime rule Part 90 (Pilotage), which came into force on 1 April 2003, set out a new pilotage regime under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, bringing pilots’ and exempt masters’ licensing within that Act’s maritime document system managed by Maritime New Zealand. The current Part 90 was always intended as an interim step towards substantive reform of New Zealand pilotage law. This initiative was programmed as one component of a larger review of the management of port and harbour safety in New Zealand. The following draft amendments to Part 90 are, thus, the final step in the development of New Zealand pilotage law.
Objectives of Part 90
1.To maintain the contribution of pilotage to safety of navigation, protection of the marine environment, and the efficiency of seaborne commerce. 2. To maintain the existing privileges of pilots and exempt masters currently in the system. 3. To enable new pilots’ licences and masters’ exemptions to be issued. 4. To ensure transparency and consistency in respect of sanctions for non-performance and protection of the rights of individuals. 5. To set minimum national standards while enabling port-specific risks to be addressed. 6. To recognise and support industry best practice.
Purpose of the draft amendments to Part 90
There are a number of key draft amendments and additions to Part 90, including:
•The introduction of a revalidation requirement for pilots and exempt masters every five years. This would require these persons, in addition to ensuring they meet currency and exercise of privilegeconditions, to make application prior to the expiry of their licence or exemption. This would entail the provision of proof of meeting exercise of privilege conditions, proof of current medicalcertificate, and a charge of $96. While the first two requirements are requirements in the existing
rule, the charge and application process are new requirements. This requirement would bring the New Zealand practice into line with international requirements under STCW-95 for revalidation of certificates every five years.
•An amendment to the Compulsory Pilotage rule that permits dedicated bunker barges that are used for the sole purpose of ship-to-ship bunkering operations to apply for an exemption from carrying a pilot within the pilotage area. This amendment was suggested by industry because insome ports it could be necessary for bunker barges to carry a pilot on every ship-to-ship bunkering operation as they were within pilotage area. This amendment provides the opportunity for these types of vessels to apply for an exemption and allows them to carry out their normal operations without the need for pilot involvement; therefore reducing complication and pilots’ workloads.
•The inclusion of a clause (90.19) allowing the Director to accept equivalent certificates orqualifications to meet the pre-requisites for the issue of a pilot’s licence or master’s exemptioncertificate under this Part. This amendment is suggested for consistency with other maritime rules.This amendment widens the qualification requirements and the scope of individuals who can be assessed for a pilot’s licence. A review of all maritime qualifications is scheduled to occur in the 2008-2009 financial year. This review may result in recommended changes to the pre-requisitequalifications. Any resulting proposed amendments will be consulted on as part of the reviewprocess. Comments are invited as to whether other qualifications should be accepted as alternative pre-requisites for a pilot’s licence in New Zealand, e.g. naval qualifications, coastal master or specificpilotage qualifications from other jurisdictions such as Australia or the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Pilotage Act 1987 prescribes no prerequisite qualification andrequires the competent harbour authority to determine the qualifications and experience required of maritime pilots. Australia is currently considering proposals to allow entrants into the pillotageindustry who do not have a Class 1 certificate of competency. Whatever prerequisite qualification of certificate any maritime rule might specify, the MaritimeTransport Act 1994 contains a general power enabling the Director of Maritime New Zealand to recognise other qualifications or certifications that he or she considers appropriate in each case forthe purpose of granting or renewing a maritime document, or recognising a document as a maritime document (section 41). The Act also empowers the Director to grant exemptions from any specified requirement in any maritime rule (section 47).
•An alteration to the Local and Advanced Training rule that allows for a trainee pilot’s past experience in another port to be taken into consideration by the Director when they are applying for a pilot’s licence. This amendment has been suggested so there is greater flexibility for individuals applying for a pilot’s licence. This will widen the areas of employment.
•An amendment to the Local and Advanced Training rule that states that within every five years, pilots must take an ‘advanced pilotage course’ to renew their pilot’s licence. This change has been made to ensure that pilots maintain industry knowledge and that industry best practice isconsistent.
•An amendment to rule 90.6 that will allow the Chief Officer/First Mate to exercise the exemption certificate of their Master under supervision. This amendment has been made to ease some of theworkload of the Master and to give experience to the Chief Officer/First Mate.
•A revision of a clause relating to the gross tonnage of tugs and tows. It is proposed that the combined gross tonnage be considered for exemption purposes. If the tow does not have atonnage then the overall length shall apply when the harbour towline length of the tug and tow exceeds any length limit applying to exemptions. This has been suggested because whilst the tug may be below the limits set for pilotage, the combined gross tonnage of the tug and tow mayexceed the minimum requirement by a large amount. Similarly, the length may exceed the minimum requirements. Tug and tow combinations are considered to be more difficult to handle than the equivalent tonnage ship, and although tug masters are highly experienced, it is considered that the local knowledge of the pilot will reduce any risk associated with the operation.
•A number of changes have been made to the schedule specifying exercise of privilege conditionsand specific rules for pilotage areas. These changes will have a variety of impacts. Two examples are Fiordland and Bluff. For Fiordland harbours where the present 100GT limit is to be raised to 500GT, the impact will be that many of the masters on tourist vessels no longer require exemptions. For Bluff, where the 500GT limit is to be reduced to 100GT this may require some vessels which currently do not carry a pilot to have to take one or obtain an exemption.
•Specific feedback is sought as to the inclusion of exercise of privilege conditions and matters suchas currency in the schedule to the Rule. This inclusion gives these conditions enforceability as they are part of the Rule; however this means that any changes to these conditions would take sometime to effect as the Rule itself would be required to be amended. Specifying these conditions inthe Advisory Circular would allow for greater flexibility to change requirements, but would reducetheir enforceability, as Advisory Circulars are designed to provide assistance and explanations asopposed to setting standards.
There are also a number of minor additional proposed amendments, which are to:
•further clarify any ambiguities with terminology in the rule
•further clarify the intention of certain aspects of the rule
•resolve minor inconsistencies within the rule
•resolve any inconsistencies with other Maritime New Zealand rules; especially to ensure that the provisions for issuing of pilot’s licences is consistent with the issuing of other Maritime NewZealand certificates and documents, such as STCW certificates
•ensure that Part 90 is consistent with industry best practice
•simplify Part 90 for ease of understanding and comprehension
•ensure that safety issues are taken into consideration and that safety is endorsed at all times
•make sure that local interests are understood and acknowledged
•provide consistency throughout pilotage areas in New Zealand
•give the responsibility back to local authorities.
What will the draft amendment rules cost?
It is envisaged that there will be no significant additional costs to pilotage operators with theintroduction of the rules. The introduction of this Part will bring in a requirement for revalidation of pilot’s licence or master’s exemption every five years. This will impose an additional cost of $96 every five years plus time taken to complete the application form. This change will bring the New Zealand practice into line with international requirements contained in STCW-95 and is considered a necessary step in ensuring that pilots and exempt masters remain competent to carry out pilotage tasks. Many current pilots are already completing additional training as part of their employment conditions. There will be a cost associated with additional training for renewal of a pilot’s licence for those pilots who are not already doing so.
What are the Benefits arising from the draft amendment rules?
•standardisation and improved consistency of pilotage rules
•clarification of pilotage rules
•the control and responsibility around pilotage rules will be given back to the stakeholders
•recognised industry best practice
•set a minimum standard for pilots which can be implemented nationally.
Risks
There are no foreseeable risks with the draft amendments of the pilotage rules.
Those Affected by the Rules
•Pilots
•Ship owners
•Ships’ agents
•Port companies
•Regional/District Councils who provide the services of a Harbourmaster
Impacts
It is foreseen that due to clarification and standardisation, consistency within the pilotage rules will havea positive impact on the aforementioned stakeholders.
Ships affected by the draft Amendment Rules
The Maritime Rules Part 90 will affect all ships within New Zealand pilotage areas except warships. Under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, all warships are exempt from the requirements to carry a pilot.
The New Zealand Transport Strategy
The amendments to Part 90 are consistent with the New Zealand Transport Strategy [NZTS], which aims to maintain and improve maritime safety and security, assist economic development, improveaccess and mobility, promote and protect public health and ensure environmental sustainability. In this regard, the amendment will –
•Maintain and improve maritime safety and security through supporting the development of a skilled and professional maritime workforce.
•Assist economic development through strengthening maritime capability and facilitating the efficient use of an integrated transport system.
•Improve the access and mobility of New Zealand mariners within international markets throughharmonising New Zealand’s qualifications with international standards. •Contribute to the objectives of the NZTS by supporting the maritime mode’s capability tocontribute to the optimal use of an integrated transport system.
Making submissions
The deadline for making comments on the draft Amendments Rules is 19 December 2007 (i.e. yourcomments must be received by that date).You may make comments by:
•e-mail to [email protected]
•ordinary post to PO Box 27006, Wellington
•fax to (04) 494 1263
•delivery to Level 10, Optimation House,1 Grey Street, Wellington.
Submissions are public information Please indicate clearly if your comments are commercially sensitive, or if, for some reason, you consider they should not be disclosed. In addition, if you are an individual (i.e. your comments are made personally and not on behalf of a company or an organisation) please indicate if you consider for some reason that your identity should not be disclosed.We will acknowledge all submissions that we receive and once the rule is finalised you will receive asummary of the full consultation. Subject to the rules of the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act, you may view the submissions made by other people at the Wellington office of Maritime New Zealand between 8.30 am and 4.30 pmon weekdays (except statutory holidays).
Pilotage Rules – Invitation to Comment
Large Container Ships
What would happen if the Emma Maersk did an MSC Napoli?
Craig Eason writing in LLOYDS LIST Friday 19 October 2007
WITH owners building container vessels of 10,000 teu and designers laying out plans for a 16,000 teu ship, salvors have again raised concern over industry ability to deal with a giant boxship casualty.
Addressing the Lloyd’s List boxship conference in Hamburg, Ian Jackson, salvage officer with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, said that if one suffered a similar fate to the MSC Napoli, European countries might be unable to cope. “We had to look hard to get hold of reach stackers and cranes to lift the containers off the ship and land them,” he said.
MSC Napoli ran into trouble in January this year while in French waters on passage to South Africa. A co-ordinated response between British and French authorities saw the vessel escorted to Portland, off the English south coast, and the vessel deliberately grounded to reduce environmental impact.
“It is a success story, but if something like this happens to one of the very large containerships around northern Europe, there is nowhere such large container numbers can be landed,” Mr Jackson said. “Ports like Southampton, Felixstowe and Rotterdam are already full with regular freight.” He urged the industry to consider the problem as demand for super post-panamax vessels steamed ahead.
When built in 1992, the MSC Napoli was the largest containership in the world, an accolade now held by the Emma Maersk, which can be expected to carry more than 7,000 containers through the English Channel. It took four months to remove MSC Napoli’s 2,318 containers, a task made easier because of good weather.
War Service
From “On Deck” May 1945
News has now been received that the Union Company’s well-known liner Monowai was in the forefront of the landing of Allied troops in Normandy on D-Day on June 5 last year. Her participation in the operation was a success, there being no casaulties among the ship’s company, and her boats are reported to have been first ashore on her sector. Following the landing Monowai has carried over 100,000 passengers to the continent.
The Aorangi also played a part in the D-Day operations, acting as the mothership for 150 tugs. Both vessels are still on war service and the captains and most of the principal officers and engineers are New Zealanders.
Training Ship Problems
From “On Deck” May 1938
To the Editor:
Sir,- In the last issue of “On Deck” I read with interest the letter published on a Training Ship for New Zealand by W.S.T., and apparently the N.Z Company of Master Mariners have been busy in an endeavour to make it easy for N.Z. boys to go to sea. Frankly, Mr Editor, I consider they are on the wrong tack.
New Zealand is a very sparsely populated country and unless the population is materially increased is in danger of being captured by an enemy in the war which is to come at no great distance date.
Our duty to-day is to increase our population and to do this our boys should be encouraged to go on the land or otherwise busy themselves ashore, for each one so doing makes another prospective defender when the country needs them.
There is no urgency about manning our Mercantile Marine with New Zealanders as we all know there are no better seamen than Scandinavians and Britons, so why not leave well alone and continue to man our vessels with men from these parts of the world. I guarantee that with an invitation from our Government, enough young men and boys would come out here to fill any shortage that was impending and as far as I can ascertain there is no acute shortage at present.
The N.Z. Company of Master Mariners can do a better service to this country if it assists immigration rather than make avenues for our boys to leave their homeland.
Yours in the interests of New Zealand
LONGSHOREMAN Wellington 9 April 1938
Honours for Members
From On Deck June 1953
A member and member of the committee, Commander G.H.Edwards, R.D., R.N.Z.N.R., was appointed early this year Honorary Naval Aide-de-Camp to His Excellency the Governor-General, Sir Willoughby Norrie, G.C.M.G., C.B., D.S.O., M.C. This is the first occasion that a Reserve Officer has held the post at Wellington and the first time an R.N.Z.N.R. officer has been so honoured. Commander Edwards was suitably congratulated by your Executive on behalf of all members.
Your Editor, Lieutenant-Commander I.B. Campbell, V.D.R., R.N.Z.N.V.R., was honoured by Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of the New Year with the M.B.E. Lieut.-Commander Campbell joined the R.N.Z.N.V.R. in 1932 as an Ordinary Seaman and has served continuously since. He is now Executice Officer of H.M.N.Z.S Olphert, the Wellington Division.
Master in Jail After Drugs Found in Cargo
Friday 31 August 2007 Lloyds List
Master facing drugs trial slams charges as ‘a farce’ By Nigel Lowry
A VETERAN Croatian reefer master has highlighted the personal and professional indignity he and two shipmates are suffering after being thrown into a Greek jail when drugs were found stashed among thousands of boxes of bananas their vessel was carrying from Ecuador. From Korydallos prison, where he has been held since mid-July, Captain Kristo Laptalo called the case against him and the other two crew members “a farce”.
In a brief telephone call to Lloyd’s List, Capt Laptalo said: “I am a seaman. I do not have a problem with the heat, or bad food or being in a small room. These are not things I cannot stand. But the awful thing is that at the age of 58 I am a prisoner when I should not be a prisoner. It is the indignity. ”
The master of the 1976-built reefership Coral Sea, together with Lithuanian first mate Konstantin Metelev and Filipino bosun Narciso Carcia, were arrested after 51.6 kilos of cocaine was found stashed in two boxes among more than 27,000 boxes of bananas that were unloaded at the Greek port of Aegion on July.
The discovery was made during a quality check carried out by the ship’s agent who notified the coastguard and police. Although the Coral Sea had already been cleared to sail, Capt Laptalo said he voluntarily left the ship to inspect the suspect boxes himself just 10 minutes before the expected arrival of a pilot.
The Bahamas-flagged vessel remains under detention in Aegion. Its manager, Trireme Vessel Managemen of Antwerp, is said to be strongly supporting the men. Trireme managing director Kevin Bragg, who also heads a number of Bonita Bananas partner companies in Europe, was travelling yesterday but approved a pre-prepared statement. It concludes: “This is a problem which afflicts all companies involved in the banana trade from South and Central America. No member of the crew could have known that the boxes containing the drugs would be unloaded in Aegion. Also, it would be impossible to introduce the drugs into the cargo while in the holds given the limited access to the holds and lack of space.”
Although they are confident the trio will eventually be acquitted, Greek lawyers have prepared them and their families for what could be a lengthy wait behind bars.
Stamatis Tzelepis of the Ioannis Iriotis law office, hired through the P&I club to handle the criminal defence of the three seafarers, said the first opportunity to seek bail again would be after September 17, with an investigating judge’s decision not likely until October.
He said the fight to have the men freed on bail would be “difficult”. Jailing of crew in drug cases was almost routine in Greece. “This is the mentality of the judges,” he said.
Mr Tzelepis said that even against this background of blanket charging of seafarers the Coral Sea case stood out.
“I personally have never seen such a case where there was absolutely no evidence before the judge. The big issue in this case is that when the ship left Ecuador the captain could not know the destination and therefore could have no plan to deliver any drugs.”
In his pleadings Capt Laptalo has said that the orders to call at Aegion were sent to him 13 days after the ship’s July 6 departure from Guayaquil. Orders to unload 27,377 boxes at the Greek port came 17 days into the voyage.
Korydallos prison, on the outskirts of Athens, is a high security jail that has hosted some of Greece’s most notorious criminals, including dictator George Papadopoulos and urban terrorists.
Otaki Scholar
Our annual meeting with members of the Durham Association was held at the Bay Plaza Hotel, Wellington on Monday 20 August 2007. This was to mark the visit of the 64th Otaki Scholar from Robert Gordon School in Aberdeen, Scotland.
2007 Otaki Scholar Denesh Srikrantharajah with Captain Tony Date, Wellington Secretary of the Durham Association.
Some of the Durham Association and Wellington Master Mariners members at the Annual Otaki Scholar meeting. From Left: John Davis, Richard Davis, Tony Spite, Brian Baggott, Ian Murray, Alfie des Tombe, Neil Bissell, Denesh Srikantharajah, Alan Darroch, Nicolas Wilson, Ian Dymock, John Brown, Tony Date, John Hermans, Cor van Kesteren, Graham Williams, John Withington, Ian Mackey, Peter Wright.
Executive Council
Executive Council members at the 2007 AGM.
Tim Wood (Warden Tauranga Branch), Richard Knight (Warden Christchurch Branch), John Brown (Master), Peter Attwood (Warden Wellington Branch), Jaap de Jong (Warden Auckland Branch), Ken Watt (General Secretary/Treasurer).
Master’s Report to 2007 AGM
Masters Report – AGM August 2007
It is with pleasure that I submit my report for the past 12 months.
Membership
Our membership as at 31 July is 248.
This includes 8 life members
Captain Max Deane Auckland Editor Retired Union Co
Captain Tony Gates Past Warden Retired British India
Captain John Twoomy Past Warden Retired Port Employers
Captain Edgar Boyack Retired Marine Department
Captain Jack Dickinson Retired Merchant Service Guild
Captain Jim Glyde Past Warden & General Secretary
Captain Jim Varney Retired Auckland Harbourmaster
Captain Fred Kelner Past Warden Retired Union Company
And 9 Honorary Members
Rev W Law Retired- Missions to Seafarers, Auckland
Cdr Larry Robbins Past CEO Maritime Museum Auckland
Piers Davies Honorary Solicitor Auckland
Dr J Frew Retired Port Doctor Auckland
Alister Macalister Honorary Solicitor Wellington
H McMorran Retired long time Gen Secretary/Auditor
Rev J Pether Retired -Missions to Seafarers, Wellington
John Woodward Honorary Solicitor Christchurch
George Hill Christchurch
Finances
Our finances have changed little from last year and the Executive can see no reason to change the present capitation levy which goes towards funding it’s activity. The main expenditure in this area is the General Secretary’s honorarium and the cost of the Annual General Meeting. It will be seen from our financial report that the balance sheet for the Company (executive) reflects a $124 surplus for the year whereas in the consolidated assets of the Company (Company and all Branches) our total assets, at $34483, are down $260 from last year.
Management
Quarterly reports from the General Secretary have been circulated on a 3 monthly basis as required by the rules. Branch Committees have met regularly and minutes received by the General Secretary. Branch Newsletters have been received by the General Secretary from all Branches on a regular basis. We also receive newsletters from kindred organisations in Canada and Australia.
The General Secretary arranged to publish the first edition of the revised “On Deck”. This was generally well received although it was not intended that some articles sourced from other publications would be included. This was done at the last minute to fill the available pages and because we had run out of contributions from members. A greater effort is being made with the next issue which should be published soon.
In an endeavour to improve our visibility generally in the shipping community the Wellington Branch committee recently authorised the development of a web site. The ongoing costs are minimal through the pro bono generosity of web site company Signify Ltd. If taken on board, this facility could be used by all branches of the Company and we would have links to kindred organisations in other countries. Our notices, newsletters, photographs and controversies would have a much wider audience.
General
It is probably time to once again look at the future of seafaring in New Zealand and to decide if we want to be involved with the future direction of the industry or simply walk away from it. In the past 25 years Master Mariners have been noticeably conspicuous by their absence from any advisory roles to Government, government agencies and ship owners. Some of this was no doubt because of conflicting interests of members or the lack of a united voice. This is understandable as we were all trained to make decisions without reference to others, however our place has been now taken in these advisory and management roles by other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants and in some cases even by marine engineers.
Some decisions have been made which have not made the master’s position any easier. I have no doubt that within our ranks there is a wealth of experience that can, and in my view, should be used for advice on maritime rule making, rule interpretation and assisting the industry to make sensible progress.
Examples of the above are Maritime Rule 22 which is a politically correct sanitisation of the International Collision Regulations and which has yet to be tested in any New Zealand Court. New Zealand Marine Weather forecasts have slowly dropped the beaufort wind scales used for many years by mariners and associated with descriptions of sea states.
In the next few months three documents will be published for public consultation. These are maritime rules that detail harbourmaster qualifications and competencies and updated pilot age rules, including the use of exemption certificates and a Ministry of Transport discussion paper. I make a plea for any members to make submissions regarding these documents if there are any parts that they do not agree with.
It will be remembered that after a couple of incidents of ships grounding at Gisborne and Bluff, the MSA set up a National Advisory Committee to look at Port and Navigation Safety. The committee consisted mainly of local authority officers and has resulted in risk assessments, safety management plans and continuing audits being made. The risk assessments have been described as good and helpful. The safety management plans are a pulling together what was already carried out in most ports. One master mariner said the manuals produced detail what a competent Harbourmaster should know to do his job and its contents would be well known to any harbourmaster of the past. The continuing audits will result in a paper war similar to that which has been introduced on board ships.
It is my view that if the position of harbourmaster, which was in most cases the senior pilot or at least an experienced pilot, had remained as it was for the previous 100 years, the incidents which resulted in the creation of the National Advisory Committee would have not occurred. There would be a career path for pilots to progress to in what should be the highest paid and most senior nautical position in any port.
A recent letter to the NZ Herald from one of our members reminded me of a rule change made some 15 years ago when obviously no Master Mariner was consulted. The letter referred to the refusal by the roads authority, Transit, to fly the NZ Red Ensign from the Auckland harbour bridge to mark Merchant Navy day. With the introduction of the NZ Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act the exclusive right of merchant ships to fly the red ensign was removed. According to the Act, the red ensign can now be flown “on land or places or on occasions of Maori significance” and NZ ships may fly either the NZ National Flag (Blue) or the red ensign but government ships must fly the NZ National Flag (Blue). The Taupo coastguard, a quasi government body, was recently given permission by the Governor General, supported by two cabinet ministers, to fly the NZ Red Ensign at their rooms – a long way from the stern of a merchant ship.
Recent press reports indicate that the culture of blame which has overtaken the industry resulted in Melbourne pilots refusing to move ships during periods of reduced visibility. The chairman of Port Phillip Sea Pilots said that this was the first time that he could recall in his 28 years as a pilot that no ships moved while the port and its surrounds were shrouded in fog. He said that since the decision to recommend criminal proceedings against pilots, they have become reluctant to put their licences in jeopardy.
In New Zealand the investigation of incidents by both the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and also by Maritime New Zealand appears to be unnecessary duplication. As the administrators of the Maritime Act, Maritime New Zealand should only need to investigate those incidents where a prosecution is considered necessary. If prosecution is not proceeded with then the results of any investigation should certainly not be published as has been done on many occasions in the past 10 years.
In a recent court case where a ferry master was found guilty of not reporting an incident to the authorities, the court did not resolve the question of ultimate responsibility where on some New Zealand ships there are two masters of supposedly equal rank and authority, both serving on the same ship at the same time. The masters do not change “watch” at the same time as the rest of the crew – all departments working their own unique rosters. This must lead to uncertainty especially when an incident does occur. There is erosion of control with one master being played off against the other. The excuse for this system is that this is the only way to run a ship 24 hours a day. This seems strange when ships have been running 24 hours a day since time immemorial. It is my opinion that there can only be one master on board at any one time but he can delegate authority and control to whoever is qualified and experienced.
Our organisation is in good heart socially, but I think it is time we took more than a passing or nostalgic interest in our industry.
Finally while on the subject of nostalgia, some members are curious as to what has happened to vast amount of shipping memorabilia that was housed and on display in such places as the Wellington Maritime Museum and the New Zealand Shipping Company Wellington Office. It has been suggested that some has been sent offshore. Many countries prohibit the export of heritage items and most of this material surely falls into this definition.
In closing, I wish to record my thanks to the General Secretary/Treasurer and to the various Branch Wardens, committees and newsletter editors for their continuing efforts.
Captain J A Brown
30 July 20007
