More methodology is disputed by M Pigneguy

More methodology is disputed by M Pigneguy …
He was being questioned as to his use of a Relative Bearing compared with Bolton’s Line of Sight method.
Apparently M Pigneguy was unfamiliar with Bolton’s method which was described as a Line of Sight transferred to the background past the other vessel – he said as if bewildered “So you weren’t lining me up with anything on your vessel, you were just looking at us?”
Bolton explained the failings of the Relative Bearing in that it was affected by sea conditions & it required that a straight course was steered by Seaway, whereas the Line of Sight method was unaffected by either of those criteria.
When M Pigneguy was trying to justify his Relative Bearing method because it was taught in navigation schools, seemingly without information about its unreliability, Mark Davies Crown Law interrupted further debating the merits of the 2 methods of determining Risk of Collision because the “expert” Barry Young was to be available later with whom “these matters could be discussed at length”
M Pigneguy in a parting, attempted to salvage his Relative Bearing method by saying “the photos show that the Relative Bearing didn’t change, hardly changed”
His eyesight must be really bad or he’s just got used to swearing Black’s White to fool Judge Davis who’s none the wiser – In Photo 1 the projection on Seaway’s bow, which is what M Pigneguy used to take his Relative Bearing from, is ahead of Classique. In photo 2 , it’s behind Classique & in photo 3 it’s out of the photo altogether . M Pigneguy denies the obvious again.
Bolton goes on to question M Pigneguy as to the Rule stating that Seaway should’ve indicated immediately that it had concern that risk of collision might exist which would’ve been a nmile or 2 back – M Pigneguy characteristically denies that too, though that’s exactly what it states. He went on to waffle unnecessary situations which didn’t apply, about ships 5 nmiles away & how he leaves his signals until he thinks the other vessel should’ve done something – He thought that photo 2 was an appropriate point but that was untrue for these reasons –
1: Classique was ahead of Seaway & had no need for a signal.
2: Photo 2 was 462 mtrs away & his claim was that he started his signals at 80 mtrs off – this inconsistency is unprofessional.
3: The Rule states “Immediately” & the range of the complying horn Seaway should’ve had is 1 nmile but only a photo was taken at the position of Photo 1 which was half a nmile away.
4: The Rule is mandatory re “Immediately”– M Pigneguy is not given the option of dithering as to if he will signal or take photos instead – this is a violation Maritime NZ & Crown Law have ignored & Judge Davis is purposely kept unaware of .
Again Mark Davies intervened, saying “we’re back to where we started” & Judge Davis recorded that M Pigneguy had denied Rule 22.34.4 said “the vessel in doubt must Immediately signal”
Judge Davis doesn’t seem to have checked what the rule stated.
Next, M Pigneguy discloses he doesn’t know what the Rules have to say about his requirement for signaling equipment.

The Relative Bearing is unreliable & M Pigneguy should’ve known its failings
2014-01-10_1258

By comparison with Bolton’s Line of Sight method which is accurate to an infallible degree
2014-02-02_1729

 

 

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