A Recap of some Violations of Maritime Rules by M Pigneguy

A Recap of some Violations of Maritime Rules by M Pigneguy
1 : Maneuvering & Warning signals
Rule 22.34.1 When vessels are in sight of one another
(a) 1 short blast to mean – “I am altering course to starboard”
(b) 2 short blasts to mean – “I am altering course to port”
(c) 3 short blasts to mean – “I am operating astern propulsion”
Rule 22.34.4 When vessels in sight of one another are approaching each other & for any reason 1 fails to understand the intentions or actions of the other, OR is in any doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt must IMMEDIATELY indicate such doubt by sounding the following signal on its whistle –
at least 5 short & rapid blasts (A short blast is 1 sec’s duration)
M Pigneguy failed to sound 3 short blasts to indicate astern propulsion – that is if he did put Seaway into astern propulsion.
No signal was made to warn that Seaway was turning to Starboard
He also failed to sound a horn IMMEDIATELY he had doubt about the actions, insufficient action or intention of Classique.
The 1st signal, instead of being made 1 nmile away, was sounded inadequately at a distance of 80 mtrs off – A camera, not mentioned as a requirement in Maritime Rules, was used to take a photo at a distance of half a nmile away – The shutter click wasn’t sufficient to alert Classique that Seaway had any doubt or concern
2 : Appendix 3 – Technical Details of Sound Signal Whistles
(a) Frequencies & range of audibility
(b) Limits of fundamental frequencies
(c) Sound signal intensity & range of audibility
(d) Directional properties
(e) Positioning of whistles
These are given for a vessel of Seaway’s length – to be heard on board a vessel having an average background noise level at the listening post – Range of 1 nmile & frequency indicative of size.
Seaway failed all these criteria as the ships whistle was not functional & in lieu was used a small handheld aerosol horn.
3 : Rule 22.17 – Action by Stand-on vessel. “If one of 2 vessels is to keep out of the way, the other must keep its course & speed”
If Seaway regarded itself as a Stand-on vessel, it must keep its course & speed. “
This is not necessarily a constant compass bearing & engine revolution but the legal definition of Course & Speed is that which is reasonably to be expected by the other vessel & that depends on the locality where the vessels are at the moment.
That would be for Seaway to keep to its Regular Run which included a turning at Browns Island to Auckland or in lieu there were 2 options – either to keep a straight course or signal its intention of doing something else early & visibly enough.
Seaway failed to assess the approach correctly as a crossing without risk of collision if both vessels kept their course & speed.
M Pigneguy violated Rules by unilaterally placing Seaway in the classification of stand-on vessel by incrementally turning starboard towards the path of Classique
4 : Rule 22.8 – Action to avoid collision.
Any action must be positive, made in ample time so as to result in passing at a safe distance & with due regard to the observance of good seafaring practice – not as close as 80 mtrs to create what is described as a close quarters situation with risk of collision.
M Pigneguy violated the principle of the Collision Regulations which was to prevent the very situation he manufactured.
5 : rule 22.40 – Responsibility
(a) Mere compliance with the rules is not enough, the mariner must also comply with the broader obligations imposed on all seamen to act reasonably & prudently.
(b) Recognizing that a number of legal duties exist apart from the 40 Rules & annexes that form the Collision Regulations, by adjusting the encounter to pass under more favourable circumstances with due regard for Special Circumstances
(c) The approach cannot be unilaterally converted by 1 vessel into another classification. M Pigneguy was not entitled to invoke the crossing rule when she herself created the situation, in which it would theoretically apply, by her own negligent action.
None of these violations were recognized by MNZ, Crown Law or Judges Wylie & Davis – They certainly got the wrong skipper

Appendix 3 with the requirements for Ships whistles for vessels of
varying lengths – Seaway’s range needed to be 1 nmile, audibility 130
2014-01-18_1214

A decent sized horn used appropriately by M Pigneguy
would’ve prevented the situation created in its absence.
1

It would appear that the violations of M Pigneyguy were ignored with a head in the sand
or turning a blind eye type behaviour by those who should know better
HeadinSand

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