The reason a close quarters occurred was that Seaway incrementally altered course to Classique
The Ferry’s Incremental Turning Caused Close Quarters.
Julian Joy constructed a table to show that even using Mr Young’s lesser angle of Seaway’s incremental changing of course to starboard, the effect of passing distance reductions was significant over the 0.5 nmile (900 mtrs) which is the distance between Photos 1 & 3.
The amount by which the passing distance between the vessels is reduced by Seaway’s altering of course incrementally to starboard – the columns are headed “Course change to starboard by Seaway in degrees”-
“Passing distance reduction in mtrs”- “Classique boat lengths (22m) that this reduction represents”- “Notes”
A 2.4* change of course would reduce the passing distance by 37.7 mtrs, 1.7 boat lengths.
A figure of 7* change ie. half way between Mr Young’s & J Joy’s reduces the passing distance by 110.5 mtrs & 5 boat lengths.
The table shows that even using Mr Young’s figures, the difference is very significant. For Mr Young to deny this is in my opinion (JJoy) unprofessional & misleading.
Using his closest point of approach distance of 25 mtrs (not agreed or verified) means that Classique would have therefore passed 25 + 53.5 = 78.5 mtrs from Seaway as a minimum if Seaway had maintained course & speed. This is not a dangerous distance between vessels like this in the environment they were in. Regardless of the amount of course change being 2.4*, 3.4* or 11* or somewhere in between – “My analysis showed therefore, in my opinion beyond reasonable doubt, that the reason a close quarters situation occurred was that Seaway incrementally altered course to starboard, in contravention of the rules & also in contravention of good practice”
In Mr Young’s affidavit he says “The Master of Seaway concluded that Classique’s bearing did not change enough to avoid collision & therefore he concluded that risk of collision existed. I (B Young) agree with this conclusion”
However Mr Young ignores the fact that M Pigneyguy used relative visual own-ship marks only, not compass bearings & this meant that M Pigneyguy did not obtain the true picture of the situation because the Seaway was altering course to starboard incrementally – not the straight course required for Relative Bearings to be valid. The incremental turning of Seaway to starboard in contravention of the Rule, therefore caused the situation to develop as it did
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess