Replying to an Earlier Comment by M Pigneguy who expresses amazement that these posts are only from Bolton’s point of view & offers to clarify other assumptions if so wished.
Perhaps these posts up till now have certainly been entirely from Bolton’s point of view because he wasn’t listened to in Court & he feels his treatment hugely deserves redress.
He was up against untruthful & misleading statements which were unwittingly accepted by a Nautically unknowledgeable Judge Davis & consequently Bolton was wrongfully prosecuted.
Bolton is amazed that after going through the hearing M Pigneguy has not learnt of his many violations & misconceptions – still inexplicably maintaining his original stance
It was made abundantly clear prior to & at the Hearing that (a) Seaway was already above its theoretical normal course said to be towards the tall Spencer/Sentinal Building in Takapuna.
(b) Clearly seen in the 3 Photos was that even that course wasn’t maintained but its course incrementally turned further to create the close quarters with Classique- no speed reduction observed.
(c) That Classique didn’t have plenty of sea room & depth to alter course at or earlier than Photo 1, was hidden by M Pigneguy in Photo 1 & strenuously denied by Barry Young as it not being possible to determine the proximity of Browns Island, Light & reef area.
(d) The helmsperson is still referred to by M Pigneguy when he has heard many times that Bolton was at the helm & controls inside his wheelhouse – there being no controls at the outside sailing steering station.
(e)There was no shouting from that person – in evidence her words read “I probably said Hey Mel, what’s going on here.”
(f) If M Pigneyguy’s normal alter course point is now changed to 015*True x 0.34nm from Browns Light why did he draw on the chart he gave to the Court a position 332*True x 0.5 nm from Browns Light – these inconsistencies suggest that neither is valid but made up to suit the purpose of convicting Bolton.
(g) Further more there’s nothing concrete about any preconceived course M Pigneguy had in mind as it’s all depending on traffic he says – in which case what was so different about Classique & why wasn’t she regarded as traffic ?
Probably because of antagonism towards her Crewing practices?
(h) Squat effect is N/A at high tide & no need to go there either.
(i) Seaway was not a stand-on vessel at Photo 2 Stage & could’ve freely turned to port or if a straight course had been held from Photo 1 there would’ve been ample clearance with no course change needed & no close quarters incident either.
(j) M Pigneguy seems to be fixated on Classique’s crew again & forgets that it is a reasonable navigational assessment that the ferries from Waiheke do go around Browns Island – perhaps those skippers without chips on their shoulders & cameras in hand don’t use Seaway as a weapon to embarrass recreational boaters who are held to be ignorant of The Rules of The Road.
(k) Again there is inconsistency as to whether Seaway had her speed reduced as mentioned earlier or was it stopped ? – evidence from Classique was that Seaway went past as fast as a ro/ro ferry would be expected to travel – no reduction apparent.
(l) Again the person on deck is referred to as the helmsperson & again that person is misquoted – recorded is “I waved acknowledgement to the ferry that we were well clear & I believe we were clear by 60 or 80 mtrs. I gave the usual wave that we give each other around the harbour when we’re clear of the passage of another vessel”
The following is the full comment from M Pigneguy …
“I was the master of Seaway 2 at the time of the ‘Classique’ incident and I am amazed at some of the assumptions made in the above ‘articles’ and that the evidence that you have provided is only from Bolton’s point of view.
Positions prior to Photo 1 being taken were shown to the court as I had just rounded the southern point of Motuihe Island and was on my normal course heading towards the tall “Spencer’ building in Takapuna. This can quite clearly be seen to be in the same position ahead in the photographs indication that I maintained my course ( and speed until I had to reduce it to avoid a collision with the Classique), and had not altered course to starboard as Bolton had asserted.
The Classique had plenty of sea room and depth to alter course as early or earlier than Photo 1. His helmsperson (who was the only person I saw at the controls throughout the incident, said that she shouted down to Bolton(who was in the deck saloon) that the vessel was on a collision course with the Seaway as the bearing was not changing. This she said in giving her evidence.
I was heading towards my normal alter course position which, depending upon traffic, is approx 015 degrees true x 0.34 nm from Browns Island light. This takes me clear of the 5m contour line that lies to the north of Browns (if in less than 5m the vessel loses a knot due to ‘squat effect’), and takes me down to my next alter course position at Northern Leading light and keeps the vessel clear of the 5m contour line to the south.
I did not alter course to port as i was clearly the stand-on vessel, and I was on my regular course line. Bolton and his lady helmsperson ‘assumed’ that I would alter course to port because I was going to go around Browns Island. As we all know, assumptions can be very dangerous and if I had not stopped the Seaway 2 we would have clearly collided with the Classique. At the time of Photo 3, the helmsperson , who waved to me at the time, said in court that she always ‘waved to the ferries who toot at them’.
There are other assumptions made that I would be happy to clarify should you wish.”
If there are any other assumptions or matters requiring clarification, they certainly can be discussed, as those associated with Nautical Protocol, have a wealth of Navigational & Legal qualifications supported also by quality interpretive references such as –
Manual of Yacht Navigation – by J. E. Toghill
Available here – Manual of Yacht Navigation