M Pigneguy & B Young In Error, The Plot Shows – JJoy Report

M Pigneguy & B Young avoid the facts of the case

M Pigneguy & B Young In Error, The Plot Shows – JJoy Report
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
6. Mr Pigneguy’s evidence that Seaway maintained course is proven to be not correct by the photographic evidence & this single factor which reduced the closest point of approach distance from well in excess of 100 mtrs down to the claimed (B Young) 25 mtrs
7. Mr Pigneguy’s evidence that Seaway slowed down has no effect on the outcome of this analysis; he would have had to slow down only because he placed Seaway in a dangerous position, not because of anything Classique did. (He was not observed to slow down & had nothing to back up his assertion)
8. Mr Young’s evidence that the amount that Seaway turned to starboard, which he incorrectly measured from the photos as 2.4’, would not be sufficient to make any difference to the situation is incorrect; changing course 2.4’ to starboard (in so far much as 2.4’ can be measured in these circumstances, which it cannot) reduces the closest distance from my measurement of about 120 mtrs, to about 46 mtrs which is getting into the uncomfortable risk range. As Seaway turned further than 2.4’ the situation was made much worse. (Seaway actually turned a total of 11 degrees)
9. Mr Young’s evidence & assertions that yaw or drift caused the progressive alteration of course to starboard are clearly incorrect. Yaw is moving about an average course, not progressively in the same direction. Drift is a bodily movement of the vessel, there were no features to cause that effect & Classique would have been similarly affected.
10. Mr Bolton’s evidence that his experience on the day & his subsequent calculations showed that Seaway had incrementally turned to starboard is proven as correct. Mr Bolton’s plot submitted to the Court shows a clearance distance of about 0.2 nmiles or 370 mtrs if Seaway had maintained a course of 286*T; this is a greater clearance than my calculations because I have used the photo 1 position as my starting point, which is conservative but soundly proven, whereas Mr Bolton used a position further back along Seaway’s path (Seaway’s turning point at Sth Motuihe)
11. Mr Young’s evidence says that if in photo 2 Classique had been ahead of Seaway, crossing ahead “… between quarter & half a nmile would be confortable. It wouldn’t have caused concern for either party at that sort of distance.”
My plot shows that had Seaway maintained its course of 286*, Classique would have crossed 0.6 nmile, 1100 mtrs ahead, just before the time of photo2. This is well within, in fact it exceeds, Mr Young’s allowance for acceptable crossing ahead in the environment.
Reading & hearing the evidence, I found the continued refusal, throughout the interviews & hearings, of MNZ & its expert witness B Young, to consider & examine the calculations of Mr Bolton can only be described as unusual & not in my opinion, of an appropriate professional standard. They are certainly not the actions I would usually associate with an attempt to establish the truth of the causative factors of an incident.
This is a very serious criminal charge that would curtail Mr Bolton’s travel & overseas yacht work.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

                                  M Pigneguy & B Young avoid the facts of the case
M Pigneguy & B Young In Error, The Plot Shows – JJoy ReportHeadInSand

 

M Pigneguy & B Young In Error, The Plot Shows – JJoy Report

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