Further Nonsense Is Stirred Up In M Pigneguy’s Article in Professional Skipper Magazine
1: He questions why Bolton had expected Seaway to be turning to port & wondered why a man with a ticket would be asking this ?
It’s strange that he writes this in his Professional Skipper Magazine article as if he didn’t learn a thing in the months leading up to & during the Hearing.
Bolton made it very clear that a ferry’s route on its Regular Run is obviously taken into Risk assessment & management by a navigator who is familiar with the area. Classique was entitled to anticipate that Seaway would turn to port after it passed Browns Light & shallows vicinity & head for Auckland from whence Classique had come. AIS records were produced which showed the very courses which were normally taken by the Waiheke Ferries.
Bolton, with a ticket was entitled to ask that & Farwell in his Rules Of the Nautical road would insist that if that is a ferry’s normal route, it becomes the course & speed Seaway was obliged to keep as an approaching vessel unless it signals an alternative & makes early & obvious alterations to course
The real question is why M Pigneguy who purports to have a ticket & Maritime New Zealand, Jim Lott in particular, isn’t aware of this interpretation
2: M Pigneguy next can’t see why Bolton believed neither vessel had to alter course or speed. He said Bolton took a relative bearing & used his “infallible” method of seeing that the land behind Seaway was moving to indicate the vessels were not on a collision course. To tag on that Bolton had been in the wheelhouse sewing cushions at the time is to purposely misconstrue what Bolton said at the interview – he was stitching lift raft covers to occupy time beside the helm & controls as he was monitoring Classique’s passage from Auckland, intending to continue Repairs & Maintenance at the anchorage in the lee of SW Motuihe.
A: Regarding the reason why neither vessel had to alter course or speed – M Pigneguy is being particularly obtuse & he hides that Seaway did alter course towards the path of Classique in violation of Maritime Rules.
It should be obvious to any thinking person, that if Seaway observed Classique 2.8 nmiles away even if Classique is crossing from port to starboard – it is not a crossing with risk of collision if both vessels keep to their courses & speed. Classique was travelling half as fast as Seaway & in that time would cover 1.4 nmiles – that’s about half way across the channel from Browns Island to Motuihe. It stands to reason that if Seaway had kept a straight course of 286* she would have been passing starboard to starboard with more than 460 mtrs clearance from Classique.
B: M Pigneguy is the one fixated on a relative bearing, Bolton didn’t use that method which he knows is unreliable & shouldn’t be used to determine risk of collision. Bolton’s “infallible” Line of Sight Method is just that, as it is even better than a compass bearing, in that it is an amplification of a compass bearing , can be used to monitor several other boats simultaneously, in conditions beyond the capabilities of a compass or when a compass is not available. For both M Pigneguy & Barry Young to be unfamiliar with it is hard to figure, as it is a fundamental practice in marine & land navigation – taught in Maritime Schools & picked up naturally by everyone else. Their education must be sadly lacking or they’re unwilling to admit the failing of their Relative Bearing method – either way it’s most unprofessional to maintain such ignorance & thereby mislead Judge Davis
Farwell’s Rules Of The Nautical Road is available by clicking here –
Farwell’s Rules of the Nautical Road”