HAURAKI MISHAP.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 72, 26 March 1931, Page 9

HAURAKI MISHAP.

PILOT RESPONSIBLE.

finding of the court.

u VERY SMALL DEVIATION FROM DUTY."

ORDERED TO PAY £26 5/ COSTS

The rock on which the Union Company's Hauraki struck when being berthed on February 21 was not previously known to be there, said the pilot, at the inquiry now being held in the Magistrate's Court at Auckland. Mr. : E. C. Cutten, S.M., presided, and with him sat as assessors Captain F. M. Barron and Captain L. C. H. Worrall, both of Wellington. Mr. Hubble appeared for the Marine Department, Mr. Allan .'. Moody for Captain A. T. Norton, of the Hauraki, Mr. Inder for the pilot who was in charge (Captain 0. F. Mclntyre), Mr. Bagnall for the Union Company, and Mr. Quilliam for the New Plymouth Harbour Board. The hearing, begun yesterday, was continued this morning. Captain Mclntyre, the pilot, gave substantially the same account of the affair as Captain Norton. He attributed the accident to the fact that he did not know the vessel had twin screws. He assumed she was a single screw vessel, and that assumption was confirmed when Captain Norton said she was slow at answering the helm—a characteristic of single screw vessels. Evidence also was given by Malcolm , McNeil, A.8., on the Hauraki. To show that Captain Norton was justified in entering the port after what the pilot said about the depth of the water, and that he had followed the usual procedure of masters with pilots, Mr. Moody called Captain P. S. Robertson, .of the Canadian Highlander, and Captain J. Brook, Commander R.N.R., D.5.0., of the Springbank. Port's Reputation. Mr. Quilliam, representing the New Plymouth Harbour Board, addressing the Court, said it was abundantly clear ■ that the casualty was in no way due to any defect in the New Plymouth Harbour. The Hauraki was clearly out of the fairway, where slin should never have been. Mr. Quilliam mentioned that -Captain Mclntyre was an official in whom the board had the fullest confidence. The matter seemed to confine itself to whether the master should have told the pilot the ship was twinscrewed. There was no authoritative ruling on the question of the respective duties of master and pilot, and it would : be a good thing if the Court could give a ruling. ■' Master and Pilot. Mr. Moody, after pointing out that Captain Norton had 21 years' experience ! and the present was his first accident, said Captain Mclntyre also had an excellent record, and any master would be ju%tified in handing over control of a ship to him. As for the rock, which was unknown to the port authorities, the only way to find such an obstacle ' would hav6 been by sweeping, and that had .apparently not been done. r. v Mr. Cutten: The evidence seems to show that she would have grounded even if,.the rock had not been there. Mr. Moody submitted that he had given ample evidence that it was not the practice of masters to volunteer infor- ( mation about a vessel being twin or single-screwed. The pilot had "Lloyd's Register," he could haw seen the telegraphs on the bridge and the noticeboards over each quarter, and could .easily have seen that the vessel had twin screws. He was in error in not being conversant with the particulars of , the vessel. Mr. Moody contended that there was ample proof that pilotage was regarded as being compulsory at New Plymouth, and it was too late for the pilot to come into Court and. say that he would have gone ashore if he had been told that his services were not required. Regarding the contention that the master should have taken charge when he saw there was danger, counsel submitted that the law on the subject was clear that the master should never interfere except in cases of urgent necessity—such as intoxication or the grossest incompetence. Captain Norton was perfectly justified in relying on the pilot's skill and local knowledge.

Question of Interference. Mr. Inder said there was no doubi that the master was in complete and final charge, even when a pilot was aboard. V; Mr. Cutten: Do you say that when . the Hauraki was slow in answering her helm the master should have interfered? Mr. "Inder said he never suggested anything of the kind, and did not know how the impression that he did suggest 6uch a thing had been created. The accident was never expected, and if the ,rock had not been there the vessel would merely have rested on a sandy bottom and come off when the tide rose. The pilot certainly had local knowledge, but he was for the time being the employee of the ship, and should have been given the fullest information as to the nature and characteristics of the implement he was using, for his temporary employer. If the ship had swung to her helm, the accident would never have happened, and counsel emphasised the fact that only six minutes elapsed from the time the pilot took charge until the vessel grounded. If she had been a single screw vessel she would have answered her helm and the mishap would have been avoided. The whole case depended on whether the pilot should have Deen told about the' ship having twin propellers. All the other Union Company's boats were single screw, and the pilot was justified in assuming that the Hauraki was the same, an assumption in which he was innocently misled by the Master, who said the ship was slow on her' helm—a characteristic of a single iscrew vessel. Counsel said all that had been said about Captain Norton's qualifications and freedom from accident applied with equal force to Captain Mclntyre, who had an absolutely clear record.

Matter of Costs. Mr. Hubble said the question narrowed itself down as to whether the master was bound to notify the pilot that the vessel had twin screws. Probably technically it would have been wise for the master to make-sure the pilot was aware of the facfts. From a layman's point of view it was fairly natural for the master to assume that the pilot knew, as there were the notices at the stern and the telegraphs on the bridge. As to the pilot, stirely it was his duty before he undertook the responsibility of berthing a vessel to 'get his premises On a question that could be so easily ascertained from Lloyd's, from observation, or from inquiry, the pilot

could surely have found out the facts. He was not entitled to assume. On the question of costs, Mr. Hubble submitted that the inquiry was absolutely necessary in view of the extensive damage and the effect on the reputation of the port, and he contended that the Marine Department should not have to bear the costs of the inquiry. Mr. Cutten asked whether it wa« suggested that the Court had the same control over the pilot as it had over the master. Mr. Hubble quoted from the rules and said they permitted the joining of anyone as a party to the inquiry. The ,jilot had been so joined. Mr. Inder held that the pilot was not controlled by the Shipping and Seamen's Act, but by the Harbours Act.

Pilot Held Responsible. After a short retirement, Mr. Cutten announced the Court's finding. He said they were of the opinion the accident was caused through the pilot not knowing that the vessel had twin screws. When the vessel reached a point where it became necessary to alter the course, lie ordered "hard to port," but, owing to the ship's characteristic slowness in responding to her helm, to the slow speed and the small amount of water below her, she did not respond. That would have been avoided had the pilot used the engines. The actual cause, then, was the fact that the pilot was unaware that she had twin screws. When the pilot first went aboard, the master at once advised him of the ship's draught and the fact that she was slow in answering the helm. Such other information as the pilot required was otherwise available, and, if he did not have that information, it was li!s duty to ask for it. The responsibility must, in the Court's opinion, rest with the pilot, who was a party to the inquiry, and he would be ordered to pay costs. Mr. Hubble said the total costs came to £52. Mr. Cutten said the accident had very big consequences, but it was a very •small deviation from duty on the part of the pilot, whose position was such that the Court thought he should not pay all the costs. He was ordered to pay 25 guineas. |

Berth Should be Swept. Mr. Cutten said, without putting it in the finding, the assessors particularly had come to the conclusion, and he quite agreed with them, that they should add that, in their opinion, the ground to the eastward of the Newton King wharf, where the accident happened, should be swept for rocks. The assessors were of the opinion that what had been done was that the ground had been dredged and the rock on which the - Hauraki struck had been left standing up 4ft. There might be others. It was to be noted that the rock was only two ships' lengths off the wharf, and an accident such as that which had happened to the Hauraki might occur at any time, owing to wind or some other cause. They con-sidered-there was not a clear enough fairway to meet the exigiences of navigation. This matter should receive the attention of the New Plymouth Harbour Board.