Admission That Seaway Could’ve Easily Altered Course To Port

Admission That Seaway Could’ve Easily Altered Course To Port, gone around the stern of Classique & nothing would’ve happened as that was what Bolton had assumed I would do”

M Pigneguy in his article in Professional Skipper Magazine continues …. “But if I’d done that I would then be assuming he would have maintained his course & speed. But if I’d done so I would be breaking 2 Maritime rules, namely 22.17 (Action by stand-on vessel) & 22.7(3) (Assumptions made on scanty information)

Analysis :
1: – As Seaway had been incrementally turning towards the path of Classique esp over the past full nmile, it was about time M Pigneguy turned to port to go back to his earlier 284* or 286 degrees which would’ve restored the ample passing clearance astern of Classique but then he wouldn’t have anything to complain about & that was his intention since he turned at Sth Motuihe.

2: – Bolton rightly had assessed the Regular Run of Seaway to be turning towards Auckland after clearing Browns Light area. This was the location Classique had left plenty of clearance astern for Seaway to have either kept a straight course or turned as it normally did to port & head for Auckland.

3: – M Pigneguy was always rightly able to assume Classique would maintain its course & speed – she was already ahead of Seaway & certainly not remotely expected or at all likely that Classique could double back in front of Seaway.

4: – Regarding breaking Maritime Rules – M Pigneguy had already broken Rule 22.34.4 by using his camera instead of sounding his signals to indicate concern & breaking Rule 22.33 by not having a ship’s whistle complying with Appendix

3.He also broke Rule 22.17 if he regarded Seaway as a stand-on vessel by not steering a straight course or alternatively as a ferry on a Regular Run to keep to the normal course & speed which was to turn to port after passing Browns Light to head for Auckland.

5: –  It is entirely spurious for M Pigneguy to quote  Rule 22.7.3 ( scanty information) that rule has to do especially with scanty radar information but most importantly in part 4, with Compass Bearing changes to determine Risk of Collision, highlighting the inappropriateness of M Pigneguy’s use of an unreliable Relative Bearing – neither vessel was using radar, both were in clear sight of each other & had been observing each other for 10 or more minutes. In Classique’s case since Seaway was more than 3.7 nmiles away enroute from Waiheke, before turning at Sth Motuihe.

It’s even more ridiculous for M Pigneguy at this stage in his article to be uncertain as to what Classique was likely to do – he’s said several times how Classique has kept its course & speed without deviation regardless of whatever M Pigneguy thinks he’s done to  have Classique do otherwise.
It would not be scanty information for M Pigneguy to assume that which Classique had made perfectly obvious during the entire time Seaway had been travelling 2.8 nmiles towards her.
M Pigneguy’s article is discrediting the intelligence of his Professional readers.

Predictive Analytics is similar to Risk assessment & management
in navigational awareness – a deficiency in M Pigneguy’s experience.


Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge