The Borrowed Ski and the Missing Lanyard
Dan has owned his Yamaha VX for three months but has never transferred the registration into his name; the registration certificate still shows the previous owner, and the hull identification plate is intact. On a Saturday he lends the ski to his brother-in-law, Ravi, who holds a full car licence but has never completed any boating or PWC knowledge test and has never ridden a PWC. Ravi launches at a busy ramp at 6:45 am, well before the ramp attendant arrives. He finds a kill-switch lanyard in the glovebox but it is frayed near the clip, so he ties it around the handlebar rather than attaching it to his wrist. He rides 400 metres out, does a few tight turns, and is stopped by a NSW maritime officer conducting a compliance check. Ravi produces no licence, no registration papers, and the lanyard is not attached to him. He tells the officer the ski belongs to Dan and that he is 'just testing it out'.
1. Identify every compliance problem visible in this scenario and explain who bears responsibility for each - Dan, Ravi, or both.
Read the worked answer
Registration transfer (Dan). In NSW a vessel's registration must be transferred into the new owner's name within the prescribed period after purchase. Three months of riding on the previous owner's certificate is well outside that window, so Dan is the person responsible - he is the owner and the change of ownership is his obligation, not Ravi's. The intact hull plate is irrelevant; the defect is administrative, not structural.
Licence (Ravi, and arguably Dan). A PWC licence is required to ride a PWC in NSW, and it is obtained by passing the general boating knowledge test plus the PWC-specific component. Ravi's car licence does not substitute for it. Ravi commits the offence by riding unlicensed. Dan's position is weaker but not clean: lending a PWC to an unlicensed rider is itself a problem, and the 'just testing it out' explanation does not create an exemption.
Lanyard (Ravi). The kill switch lanyard must be worn on the body, not tied to the craft. Tying it to the handlebar defeats the entire purpose - if the rider falls off, the craft keeps going under power. This is a safety-equipment failure and Ravi is responsible as the operator.
Ramp and paperwork (Ravi). Launching without registration documents on board and without the required safety equipment check is a further breach. Responsibility for carrying documents sits with the operator at the time of the check.
Who is worst off? Ravi faces the immediate penalties; Dan faces the transfer offence and exposure for lending to an unlicensed person. The judgement point is that 'it's my brother's ski' is not a defence for any of the operator-side breaches.
2. Ravi argues that because the ski is registered and Dan owns it, the compliance failures are Dan's problem. Assess that argument.
Read the worked answer
The argument confuses ownership obligations with operator obligations. NSW compliance checks attach to whoever is in control of the vessel at the time, and separately to the registered owner for ownership-type duties.
Obligations that travel with the owner are things like keeping registration current, transferring it on sale, and not permitting an unlicensed person to operate. Those are Dan's, and Ravi cannot cure them by riding carefully.
Obligations that travel with the operator are the ones exercised minute to minute: holding the correct licence, wearing the lanyard, carrying the required safety equipment, observing distance-off and speed rules, and producing documents on request. Ravi was the operator, so those are his regardless of whose name is on the certificate.
So Ravi is wrong on the licence and the lanyard, and right only in the narrow sense that the transfer defect is Dan's to fix. A useful way to frame it for the exam: ask 'who could have prevented this breach at the moment it occurred?' For the lanyard, only Ravi. For the transfer, only Dan. For lending to an unlicensed rider, both had a hand in it.