A Camera Doesn’t Substitute For A Skipper’s Maritime Obligations
M Pigneguy writes in his article in Professional Skipper Magazine …
1: “The photographs I took were an essential part of the prosecution’s case, not only because they showed exactly what occurred but also because they were a good reminder of what happened before & after the event.”
As far as Bolton was concerned, the photos incriminated M Pigneguy in the clear showing of more than M Pigneguy expected & still stubbornly refuses to acknowledge – the showing of Seaway turning incrementally towards the path of Classique as revealed by the lining up of Seaway’s heading in each photo with features in the background – not quite what would’ve been expected.
M Pigneguy didn’t seem to regain any memory of what happened before or after the event that was helpful to the Court. He forgot that Classique was already at the Browns Island end of the channel before he turned towards it at Sth Motuihe & that Classique was making good progress across Seaway’s next heading before seaway’s course climbed above 286 degrees.
M Pigneguy also forgot that after photo 3, Seaway was heading well above the course he had drawn on his evidential chart – heading East of Rangitoto Wharf instead of his marked Nth Browns Island turning point for Auckland – further evidence of his turning towards Classique.
2: M Pigneguy next advises his readers “Just stick to the facts; make no assumptions & keep your response to questions clear, concise & minimal. Be very clear what rules & regulations you were operating under at the time of the incident.”
If he had followed that advice himself, it would’ve been very helpful to the Court. M Pigneguy did just the opposite – he evaded the facts & concocted stories to suit himself. His responses to Bolton’s questions were convoluted, evasive & long winded in the process of confusing Judge Davis. He seemed to have no idea of the Maritime Rules & obligations which applied to him in the passage he was responsible for in Seaway as it approached Classique.
The Rule 22.15 he was fixating on, didn’t apply in the situation at all – the course & speed he was obliged to keep had nothing to do with Stand-on or Give-way vessels but the course he was on before he encroached on Classique’s path, altering the classification of the original approach.
3: M Pigneguy’s nonsense continues – “If you see a possible incident in the making while you are at the helm, ensure you have another watchkeeper as a witness & you are able to use a camera.”
Unfortunately in this case, it was M Pigneguy making this incident because he was at the helm & having Phillip Sweetman, his trainee watchman as a witness, only implicated an otherwise innocent person in an embarrassing collusion of evidence which was beyond the young chap’s comprehension. He wasn’t even checking Seaway’s course or at the time, verifying the location M Pigneguy said was the point of incident at photo 3 – probably because it wasn’t taken then but made up later, back in Auckland when information was being fabricated.
It’s also not very professional to tell his professional skipper readers to use a camera when he had pointed out to him in Court & the months leading up to the Hearing, how he used his camera instead of following the obligations as set out in Maritime Regulations for the skipper of a vessel in an approach situation.
Not only that but his 3 photos reveal evidence incriminating him even though he refuses to recognize the obvious turning of Seaway & the zooming of Photo 3 they show to his detriment.
1: The infamous zoomable Camera – tells a different story.
(M Pigneguy would’ve been better off with a complying horn,
used according to Maritime Regulations)
2: Changes of Seaway’s courses revealed within the 3 Photos.