M Pigneguy doesn’t understand his Relative Bearing fails.
Bolton suggested Seaway had been entirely free to move towards Browns Island instead of towards the path of Classique & referred to Maritime Rule 22.8.3 Action to avoid collision – alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to take to avoid a close quarters situation provided it’s made in good time & substantial …enough to be observed by the other vessel.
M Pigneguy asked why he should’ve done that … “I was on my correct course at 286 degrees. I was observing you before I took photo 1 & for I don’t know how long. It was obvious that the relative bearing was not changing on the course that I was on, so I started taking photos.”
This compares with his earlier saying that there was no course he had to specifically follow & he often altered it depending on other traffic around. Here again he admits he had concerns for some time after turning at Sth Motuihe but only took photos instead of alerting Bolton by sounding his absent mandatory complying ship’s whistle.
Bolton explains how M Pigneguy by turning towards the path of Classique, was bringing his Relative Bearing up with him.
1: M Pigneguy denies he was turning but neither he nor Phillip Sweetman had checked his course & he’d already said he could’ve been varying it from 283 to 289 degrees in his approach
2: M Pigneguy then foolishly states “If I was turning to starboard, the Relative Bearing would have increased, not decreased.” This is plainly wrong & for M Pigneguy to be only using a Relative Bearing to determine risk of collision is negligent & without knowing how it works is even worse.
It is the changing of a Compass Bearing the Rule requires.
3: M Pigneguy excuses his 6 degree variation of course as being normal as most vessels stray either side of a course
& that even if he had turned as Bolton claimed, 10 degrees still wouldn’t have made a lot of difference at that range, saying “a 1 degree change of course over 60 nmiles would put you a nmile off course”
Judge Davis, without any nautical knowledge would not have understood any of these technical matters which are very important when it comes to an analysis of a close quarters development.
M Pigneguy apparently is only setting out to mislead Judge Davis but in the process he reveals that he doesn’t understood his navigation as well as he makes out.
Given that 1 degree will put a vessel off course 1850 mtrs in 60 nmiles – in 1/2 nmile it’s out by 16 mtrs & this is the range applicable in this case so if Seaway is varying by 6 degrees, that effects the clearance at point of closest approach by 96 mtrs & an 11 degree alteration such as Bolton claims would make a difference of 176 mtrs.
Considering Seaway had been turning incrementally over 2 miles, M Pigneguy reduced clearance by more than 463 mtrs.
Any of those numbers of degrees turned in the direction of the path of Classique has a significant effect on the amount of clearance that is available. It is this turning which is 100% responsible for the incident manufactured by M Pigneguy, against all Maritime Regulations designed to prevent such an event. This was entirely in the control of M Pigneguy who was at liberty to vary his approach to suit himself & if he signaled no concern to Bolton regarding the amount of clearance he gave himself, he is acting in violation of Maritme Rules by then dishonestly complaining to Maritime New Zealand.