Comment from M Pigneguy about Errors & Assumptions in posts

A Comment from M Pigneguy in February about Errors & Assumptions made in posts indicating lack of Nautical knowledge or having not studied the Court documents.
M Pigneguy can be assured that these posts are made with full verification of every Nautical matter requiring specialized knowledge & it is from copies of the Court documents that accurate information is readily obtained.
Regarding Seaway being “almost stationary” at Photo 3 – Bolton says that he & his crew testified that Seaway went past as fast as a ro/ro ferry would be expected to be travelling & M Pigneguy was seen with his arm out the wheelhouse window fumbling an aerosol horn to make a couple of signals enroute.
Bolton also refers to M Pigneguy saying several times that Seaway was “stopped”, “dead in the water” etc & that was repeated as a consequence by Judge Davis but obviously those statements were untrue & appear to have been made to mislead the Court as to the real nature of the circumstances ?
Bolton also says that there was no reason for M Pigneguy to think that his actions were necessary to avoid any collision as Seaway was at all times assessed to be passing astern & Bolton had the option of increasing Classique’s speed if the “Rogue” Ferry was to get any closer than acceptable.
Bolton also produced evidence from the 3 photos that that Seaway had turned up from its stated course of 286*T prior to Photo 1 & continued incrementally to turn closer to Classique’s path – that being 100% responsible for creating the close quarters situation.
The benefit gained from that seems to be the gaining of a prosecution to penalize Bolton for whom a long term antagonism has apparently been held by the parties involved.
The above is in response to this comment made by M Pigneguy “There are still so many errors in your above assumptions that I have to assume that you have very little nautical knowledge or have not studied the court documents, especially when I was being questioned by both Bolton and the Judge. By the time of Photo 3 I had the Seaway almost stationary otherwise we would have collided with the Classique. I had maintained my course after rounding Motuihe and was proceeding on my regular course of 286 degrees true. This course was maintained, as seen in the photos, and I certainly DID NOT alter course to starboard in order to create a close quarter’s sitiuation with Classique. What benefit could I possibly gain from that, especially as that would have been turning away from my intended waypoint?? I think, from memory, I was skippering the Seaway for around the 300 th time around Brown’s, so I am quite clear about what happened. How many times have YOU skippered a similar sized vessel in that area?
Again , I ask you to identify yourself and tell me of your marine qualifications and experience, otherwise your comments have absolutely no credibility. Otherwise it would pay you to stop publishing such a very one sided opinion of this case. It was very obvious to all in the courtroom that Bolton not only had almost no knowledge of court procedure, but also little knowledge of the Collision Regulations. Perhaps you weren’t present though?”
Bolton’s evidence in court appears to be entirely nautically sound & has been thoroughly validated by Julian Joy’s report.
As to those associated with Nautical Protocol, there is a wealth of Navigational & Legal qualifications supported also by quality interpretive references such as available here –

Paul Bossier’s –  Nautical Rules of the Road
Nautical Rules of The Road

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