Article re Prosecution by M Pigneguy is plain Skullduggery

Article regarding Prosecution by M Pigneguy is plain Skullduggery

In the Professional Skipper Magazine to which M Pigneguy is a contributing author, he wrote a 3 page article illustrated with the 3 photos he took as his alleged incident was created.

As if he hadn’t learnt anything during the Hearing, after telling his readers they should know their responsibilities when in a crossing situation with another vessel, they are told how to use a relative bearing to determine risk of collision.

These are 2 points M Pigneguy should’ve been clear on by this time

1: There are most crossing situations with no risk of collision such as the one which started with Classique. Then there are other crossings with expected risk of collision.

2: The Relative Bearing is the most unreliable method of determining Risk of Collision as it requires a steady course to be maintained all the while – which M Pigneguy failed to keep in this case.

He then says “for some years now I’ve always had my camera ready at the helm … if I see a give-way vessel that may present a problem … I start taking photos … if you end up in court photographic evidence is hard to refute”

The Rules state nothing about using a camera – he was obligated to use a complying horn at the appropriate time & distance off to let Classique know he had concern – that gives an opportunity for corrective action but it appears that M Pigneguy in this case was more interested in entrapment  not alerting – further more the very photos he took reveal that he incrementally & irrefutably turned towards the path of Classique to create the situation to complain about.

His advice that “you should make a note of times, course, speed & position & have the watch-keeper verify it” wasn’t followed by M Pigneguy himself – he didn’t even make his own notes until he was finishing up for the day back in Auckland & then he asked Phillip Sweetman, his trainee watchkeeper, to copy it in the event a prosecution followed. The only problem was, Phillip Sweetman didn’t know what the info was about & in trying to make it look original, he got things confused such as the 1st point of observation with the point of incident, the direction of Browns Light from Seaway & put himself on top of Browns Island etc. He admitted he didn’t check course or see M Pigneguy take the position of the alleged incident.

This is not even covering the 1st page of M Pigneguy’s article & it continues …

An article written by one who acts like someone who hasn’t learnt a thing
for others he regards as incapable of figuring things out for themselves.
download (13)

 

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