Ian Howden is the Maritime New Zealand witness called next

Ian Howden is the Maritime New Zealand witness called next
In his Brief of Evidence he describes the way he tested the handheld aerosol hooter M Pigneguy used in lieu of having a proper complying ship’s whistle & then how he tried to estimate the clearance Seaway was left with after M Pigneguy had progressively turned towards the path of Classique.

1: He didn’t mention that this inadequate hooter, normally used by small runabouts, had to comply with Maritime Rules Appendix 3 for audibility & frequency & it obviously had no possibility of meeting those requirements.
He had gone out with another staff member to the Browns Light area & found that it was audible at .25 nmiles & fainter at .05 nmiles. It was entirely a waste of time & resources  doing  that futile exercise.
More to the point is the devious & misleading absence of any censure of M Pigneguy for violating this mandatory requirement which was the major reason this incident happened, especially when M Pigneguy used his camera instead of a regular ships horn to be heard at 1 nmile in the other vessel’s  wheelhouse above its ambient noise. Very different to M Pigneguy’s hoots at 80 mtrs off.

2: The measurements to determine the clearance at the point of closest approach were equally fraught with unreliability.
Seaway was not only stationary & unladen but its ramp was resting on the shore consequently relieved of its weight .  The beach on which the measurers were standing was rising above the water level but more skewing of results than all, was that the post on Seaway used as a reference point said to be close to the hull of Classique was in fact found to be several mtrs away from that proximity when the photo 3 was sufficiently magnified.
That this photo 3 had been zoomed after photos 1 & 2  by M Pigneguy would also create a distorted view of reality.

If Ian Howden thought there was insufficient clearance between Classique & Seaway, that was another violation of Maritime Rules by M Pigneguy. The obligation those Collision Regulations impose on a skipper in M Pigneguy’s position is to act early enough to prevent a close quarters from happening at all but that would appear to be the sole aim of M Pigneguy’s actions in violation –  the manufacturing of a close quarters to take a photo of for the purpose of complaint.  The very complaint he made reveals this violation which was completely ignored by Ian Howden & everyone in Maritime New Zealand from the Director down who had any connection with this improper investigation.

 Ian Howden’s unprofessional analysis of hooter & clearance
becomes typical methodology during the Investigation.
2014-08-04_2112

 

 

 

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge