The Ferry’s errors in Assessment and Management of ColRegs

It’s been established that M Pigneguy has fabricated his story about when photos were taken & blasts made

The Ferry’s errors in Assessment and Management of ColRegs
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
As the ferry rounded Sth Motuihe M Pigneguy recognised Classique coming out from Browns Island 2 nmiles away & established that Risk of Collision existed because the Relative Bearing to Cqe didn’t appreciably change, therefore with Cqe on its port bow decided that Rule 22.15 applied – “Crossing with Risk of Collision.” Consequently according to Rule 22.17 (1) the ferry would be the Stand-on vessel obliged to keep its course & speed, with Cqe as the Give-way vessel Rule 22.16, directed to take early, substantial action to keep well clear. The ferry continued, its skipper & deckhand observing that the Relative Bearing was virtually unchanging so as they began to gauge how close they were going to pass, a 1st photo was taken followed by a 2nd Photo about 30 seconds later when it appeared to them that Cqe was not taking any avoiding action. “When Cqe was aprox 80 mtrs away five short blasts were sounded on the ferry’s whistle, repeated 2 or 3 more times.” Then he said he slowed the ferry right down allowing Cqe to pass ahead estimating the clearance to be close. His written evidence was that the 1st photo was taken at 1st horn blast & the 2nd photo at 2nd blast.
(It’s been established that M Pigneguy has fabricated his story about when photos were taken & blasts made in the 10 seconds available at 80 mtrs off. Neither did he slow Seaway down)
The ferry skipper erred in his assessment, management, understanding & application of Rule 22.7 determining –
(a) Whether Risk of Collision exists by using his Relative Bearings which only are reliable if his vessel is keeping its course. Prior to the taking of photos the ferry had begun to turn towards Cqe, then as the photos show, the ferry continued to turn towards Cqe between photos 1 & 2 bringing the bearing with him creating the effect of them appearing to change slightly.
(b) That from far away & even at 1 km distant, still considered risk existed when Cqe was moving away from the point at which the ferry would round Browns Light, leaving clear also the ferry’s earlier 286 course if it went straight ahead.
(c) In which case Rule 22.15 didn’t apply, there being no Risk of Collision therefore Rules 22.16 & 17 didn’t apply there being no Stand-on or Give-way requirement but never the less he violated his requirement to hold his course – as seen in photo 2 where both Cqe & the ferry have both moved up to appear as if there’s been no change in the Relative Bearing whereas if a Compass Bearing had been taken it would’ve been noticeable with Cqe already past the ferry’s bow. The 2nd Part, Rule 22.33, continues …
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

286* is where M Pigneguy said Seaway was heading
292* is where Seaway was heading in Photo 1
295* is where Seaway was heading in this Photo 2
The Ferry’s errors in Assessment and Management of ColRegs

The Ferry’s errors in Assessment and Management of ColRegs

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