Article by M Pigneguy in Professional Skipper Magazine

Article by M Pigneguy in Professional skipper Magazine continues
The unabridged gospel according to M Pigneguy for the enlightenment of his readers who might be expected to know their Collision Regulations …
“I took a relative bearing using part of our vessel’s structure as a reference point. The bearing wasn’t changing significantly, so I began taking photographs, just in case the skipper of Classique was unaware of the consequences that were developing.”
1: The taking of a relative bearing is the most unreliable method of determining risk of collision as it relies on Seaway to be holding a steady course, which we now know was not the case – it was coming up from 284* to 286* & incrementally higher. No wonder it wasn’t changing much because, as M Pigneguy explains to an audience who should know what happens, that reference point of his vessel’s structure was obviously coming up with Seaway as it turned towards the path of Classique. The Maritime Rules wouldn’t accept a Relative Bearing as being anywhere near the standard of a compass bearing.
From Classique’s point of view, before Seaway began heading higher than 286* there was very clear determination there was no risk of collision & both vessels would easily pass clear of each other holding the courses they were on.
2: The taking of the photos is only a revelation of M Pigneguy’s intention to entrap & not alert Classique of the encroachment which was in progress.
His readers would know of Maritime Rule 22.34.4 – “The vessel in doubt must IMMEDIATELY indicate such doubt by sounding the warning of at least 5 short & rapid blasts on a complying ship’s whistle” They hopefully don’t backslide into using photography as M Pigneguy is suggesting is a viable alternative.
The Article continues with M Pigneguy writing – “It became very obvious we were going to collide unless Classique took some drastic action. Photo 2 was taken & 5 blasts were sounded on our whistle with still no reaction from Classique. A further 5 blasts were sounded with the same result”
This article was written after the Hearing & after the many preceding months when Bolton was pointing out that M Pigneguy’s Claim & Brief of Evidence was impossible & implausible as he couldn’t have sounded those signals at the distance of 80 mtrs off he was stating in those documents. He would only have 10 seconds which at the best was only enough for 5 blasts & no waiting for reaction. So eventually learning of his error, he changed his story at Court & for this article for those signals to be initiated at photo 2 not about photo 3.
A: The problem even with that is he didn’t have a complying ship’s whistle to use as he would have his readers believe – it was out of action.
B: Photo 2 was 462 mtrs away, quite a difference from the original 80 mtrs claimed & rather hard to explain that discrepancy.
C: So the official sounding & misleading “our whistle” was in reality a hand held aerosol hooter – the type used in dinghies & small runabouts which are open craft. It had insufficient audibility & frequency to be heard 462 mtrs away within the wheelhouse of Classique above the average background noise level.
The Article doesn’t get any better as a factual report of the prosecution & as an educational document, it’s as far off track Nautically, as Judge Davis’ decision.

Relative Bearing is unreliable & requires the holding of a steady course
2014-01-10_1258

The difference between what M Pigneguy used – a camera & aersol compared with what
he was required to have to comply with Maritime Rules –  decent signaling equipment,
2014-05-29_2046

 

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