Plot Shows Close Quarters to be Artificially Created (J Joy Report)
1: If both vessels had maintained course & speed from Photo 1 position, they would’ve passed with a minimum of aprox 0.065 nmile or 120 mtrs apart at the closest point of approach. Classique would’ve crossed ahead of Seaway at 0.6 nmile or 1100 mtrs away at about 1.5 minutes before photo 3. This is in my opinion a perfectly safe distance in the area concerned.
2: The single factor that caused the 2 vessels to approach as close as they did was the incremental changing of Seaway ll’s course to starboard throughout all the time covered by the photos. If Seaway had maintained course, safe clearance would’ve been maintained.
3: It cannot be argued that the altering of Seaway’s course to starboard was to avoid a collision – action to avoid collision must be bold & clear, not incremental & would not have occurred until ‘the last moment’.
4: It cannot be argued that the altering of Seaway’s course to starboard was “Yaw”, as yaw is an altering of heading around an average course. Yaw is caused by the inability of the vessel to maintain a straight course due to undulating sea conditions. Seaway is perfectly capable of steering a better course than plus or minus 5 * as stated by Mr Young, especially in the calm conditions at the time. In addition, Seaway, if yawing would still show as 286*T on the scale of the plot.
5: It cannot be argued that the altering of Seaway’s course to starboard was “drift”, as this would require a bodily movement of Seaway sideways at an excessive rate whilst maintaining the same heading – there was no tide to do this & if there was, Classique would have been significantly more affected by this than Seaway would’ve been.
Drift caused by known current can be calulated & compensated for in plotting a course
If by his use of the word “drift” Mr Young means a progressive off-course cumulative course change in one direction, then he is near the truth of what occurred.
6: Mr Pigneyguy’s evidence that Seaway maintained course is proven to be not correct by the photographic evidence & this single factor reduced the closest point of approach clearance from well in excess of 100 mtrs down to the claimed 25 mtrs.
7: Mr Pigneyguy’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.
8: Mr Young’s evidence that the amount that Seaway turned to starboard, which he incorrectly measured from the photos as 2.4 degrees, would not be sufficient to make any difference to the situation is incorrect; changing course 2.4* to starboard ( in so 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.
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 one 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 ll had incrementally turned to starboard is proven as correct. Mr Bolton’s plot submitted to the Court shows a clearance of about 0.2 nmile 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 nearer the 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 mile would be comfortable. 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’ve crossed 0.6 nmile, 1100 mtrs ahead, just before the time of Photo 2. this is well within, in fact it exceeds Mr Young’s allowance for acceptable crossing ahead in this environment.
Reading & hearing the evidence, I found the continued refusal, throughout the interviews & hearings of MNZ & its expert witness 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 not the actions I would associate with an attempt to establish the truth of the causative factors of an incident.