Sound Signals Used On Seaway By M Pigneguy, JJ Report

A comparison between the aerosol can & a complying Ship’s Whistle. A camera doesn’t count.

Sound Signals Used On Seaway By M Pigneguy, JJ Report
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Mr Pigneguy’s evidence states that “When Classique was approximately 80 mtrs away, I sounded 5 short blasts on Seaway’s whistle. This action was repeated 2 or 3 more times…”
Mr Sweetman’s evidence repeats this distance for the first 5 blasts as being given at 80 mtrs, as does the Opening Address for the Informant.
Each set of 5 blasts would take 10 seconds to emit or even 7 seconds if rushed. It would take Seaway & Classique 80 divided by 11.3 = 7 seconds to cover the distance of 80 mtrs, until the 2 vessels met, clearly an insufficient time for even the first set of blasts. Two further sets could not have been accomplished. In addition, the ship’s whistle was not working on the day, so a small compressed air can was used. This can being tested by Mr Howden & found to be, by my interpretation of his results, below specification.
( Mr Lees of Sealink advised me that the horn had a water ingress problem & was subsequently repaired soon after)
Therefore overlooking any compliance debates that were raised in evidence, the distances & the times given in evidence do not fit, they are in my opinion impossible, therefore Mr Pigneguy must be mistaken about his actions & times or of the distances. His answering of questions on this matter was evasive & vague.
Mr Pigneguy is correct in stating that giving these blasts is required under Part 22.34.4, if he was in doubt of Classique’s actions but his evidence is too inconsistent for me to reach a conclusion on when he actually did this, whether he did them according to specification & the possible effect of it on the situation. I conclude that overall they have no material effect on the incident, its causes or its outcome.
(Bolton drew attention to the requirement of Rule 22.34.4 which states “the vessel in doubt about actions or lack of action of the other vessel MUST IMMEDIATELY indicate such doubt by sounding the warning signal of 5 short & rapid blasts”
M Pigneguy stated in his evidence that he had increasing doubt about Classique beginning when he turned at Sth Motuihe, more than 2 nmiles away. At 1nmile away his complying Ship’s Whistle would have had the range of audibility to warn Classique but M Pigneguy took a photo instead at 0.5 nmile, the position of Photo 1 & then used a hand held aerosol can at 80 mtrs off. This was stupidly inappropriate & severely contrary to Maritime Rules.
Not giving Bolton any indication that M Pigneguy had any concern at all, absolves Bolton of any requirement to consider M Pigneguy was anything but satisfied with the situation M Pigneguy was creating unilaterally in violation of Collision Regulations.
Bolton was prepared to act if the Rogue Seaway decreased the available clearance any further.
Bolton also drew attention to the collusion between M Pigneguy & Phillip Sweetman, evident in both agreeing with the 80 mtr separation.
Maritime New Zealand during cross-examination said they hadn’t even considered the impossibility of M Pigneguy’s claim)
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

A comparison between the aerosol can & a complying Ship’s Whistle. A camera doesn’t count.
Sound Signals Used On Seaway By M Pigneguy, JJ Report,HooterPlusCamera

 

Sound Signals Used On Seaway By M Pigneguy, JJ 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