Rule 22.34 Quoted by Barry Young in His Brief

Signals required during approach of vessels including “Audibility, frequency & range”

Rule 22.34 Quoted by Barry Young in His Brief
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
On first seeing this quote of Maritime Collision Prevention Rule 22.34 – “Sound Signals Required by vessels in sight of each other” there is no connection made with the incident or to either vessel.
Barry Young simply quotes the Rule – “Vessels in sight of each other are to use specific whistle signals when turning, stopping or engaging propulsion astern so that other vessels in the vicinity are warned of their actions.
This same Part requires any vessel who :
* fails to understand the intentions of another vessel or who
* is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other vessel to avoid collision …to indicate such doubt by giving at least 5 short & rapid blasts on the ship’s whistle”
This is strangely in isolation – as Barry Young hasn’t mentioned in his whole brief of evidence whether M Pigneguy complied with or violated Rule 22.34 – very much in line with Barry Young’s role as Hired Gun in the employ of Maritime New Zealand rather than being a help to the Court as an Expert Witness in establishing the facts of the case.
This Rule 22.34 is an important mandatory Part of a master’s responsibility governing the approach of vessels & is to be used in conjunction with Appendix 3 – “Audibility, frequency & range” which Barry Young doesn’t mention at all.
Analysis of M Pigneguy’s complete violation of all components of Rule 22.34 & Appendix 3 …
1: Seaway’s ship’s whistle was out of order & had been for some considerable time & M Pigneguy as a relieving skipper had got used to carrying a small handheld aerosol hooter – the type dinghies & small runabouts might have, not complying in the slightest with the audibility, frequency & range required in Appendix 3 for a vessel of Seaway’ size.
2: Neither Maritime New Zealand, Mark Davies , Barry Young, nor M Pigneguy appeared to be conversant with the requirements of Rule 22.34 & Appendix 3
3: M Pigneguy made his 1st series of warning signals at 80 mtrs off instead of IMMEDIATELY he had any concern as to the actions of Classique. This was more than a nmile away but his inadequate handheld aerosol hooter couldn’t have been heard at anything like that distance. It was required to be audible in Classique’s wheelhouse above ambient background noise.
4: The Rule describes that 1st series of blasts as a warning signal intended to alert the other vessel & enable it to take whatever action deemed appropriate. At 80 mts off & at the rate Seaway was travelling, M Pigneguy left no time for Classique to take remedial action, even if the signal was heard. In the 10 seconds available, M Pigneguy violated that requirement & he had no time at all to carry out the 2nd series he said he sounded before he said he began to slow down.
5: There was no evidence that Seaway slowed in the slightest but went past as fast as a ro/ro ferry would be expected to travel. Furthermore M Pigneguy failed to sound his mandatory signal to indicate he had applied astern propulsion – that raises the question as to whether he actually did or just said he did to add sensationalism to the situation he was manufacturing for the Court.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

                                              “Audibility, frequency & range”
Rule 22.34 Quoted by Barry Young in His Brief,SizeMatters

Rule 22.34 Quoted by Barry Young in His Brief

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