Summary Regarding the Positions of the Incident (J Joy)

Summary Regarding the Positions of the Incident (J Joy Report)
Mr Bolton’s evidence tabled a plot he had made showing Photo 1 being taken in Lat S36* 49.45 Lon E174* 54.91
This item of evidence was rejected by the Court on advice from the prosecution but in fact it is an important analysis document carried out by Mr Bolton
Mr Young’s evidence stated that the position of photo 1 cannot be established. This would appear to be incorrect & is in my opinion therefore misleading to the Court.
Mr Young repeatedly asserts that position fixing using the photos cannot be done. However visual fixing in this manner is a common & longstanding practice & “Admiralty Pilot Books” include drawings of views to assist mariners to establish positions on coastlines using this method.
images (2)                 images
In addition, Mr Young then accepts & uses the Seaway ll position 3 : “The only position that I’ve heard in the whole incident is the position of the incident which was 020 from Browns Island light at .25 nmile & that is the only position I have worked with throughout because that’s the only time that anybody actually took a position & that’s all we can work with”
However it is known from MNZ evidence that no positions were being taken or plotted during the time. The Chart with the position used by Mr Young could have been drawn any time until 6 June’09 when it was presented to MNZ.
Furthermore, Mr Young then uses it for his ‘known angle’ (horizontal angle) of 29* while continuing to deny the possibility of any of the positions being calculated. This process was in my opinion misleading to the Court.
Mr Bolton’s evidence tabled a plot he had made showing the position of Photo 3.
This item of evidence (Mr Bolton’s plot analysis) was rejected by the Court on advice from the prosecution but in fact it is an important analysis document carried out by Mr Bolton.
Mr Young’s evidence stated that the position of Photo 3 cannot be established. This would appear to be incorrect & is in my opinion therefore misleading to the Court.
Mr Pigneyguy’s evidence was a copy of a chart drawing submitted in June 2009 & is shown below. The position of closest approach in the incident, photo 3 is given as aprox 020*, 0.25 nmile from Browns Island Beacon & this agrees within a few mtrs with my position.
FullChart
It is important to note that this submitted chart evidence is not a ‘live’ chart from the time of the incident. No plot, either paper or electronic, was carried out by either vessel during the time of the incident 14th March.
“MNZ have confirmed with the relieving master of Seaway ll that the course & position of his vessel at the time of the incident was not plotted on a paper chart”
The plots on the June chart can therefore considered as possible intention tracks only, drawn at an unknown time after the event & submitted to MNZ on 9th June’09. They cannot therefore be considered in the analysis as indicating actual positions on the day.
There is therefore no actual live or reliable plot from the day of the incident given in evidence by the prosecution.

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