Evidence Of Damaged Plate On Holmglen

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29146, 5 March 1960, Page 14

Evidence Of Damaged Plate On Holmglen

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 4. A damaged hull plate in the engine-room of the motor-vessel Holmglen had not been repaired during its last survey about a month before it sank, according to evidence today at the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the vessel on November 24. Evidence for the Crown was completed today and 23 formal questions were put to the Court concerning the cause of the disaster.

Michael Henry Rump, former second engineer of the Holmglen, said when he was serving in the vessel from July to September, 1959, he was told by the chief engineer that one of the hull plates on the port side of the engine-room would be repaired at the next survey. He was told the plate had sprung while the ship was at the Chatham Islands and that there had been some leakage from it. He left the ship before the. survey was made and could not say if the plate was repaired. A report of the last survey made of the Holmglen in October was produced. It made no mention of an engine-room plate having been repaired during the survey.

Inflatable Rafts Urged Earlier, the chairman, Mr A. C. Perry, said the present feeling of the Court of Inquiry was that ships on the New Zealand coastal trade should be equipped with inflatable life rafts in addition to standard equipment. Mr Perry made the recommendation after an expert witness, Victor George Boivin, the Marine Department’s Chief Surveyor of Ships, had been crossexamined on inflatable rafts by counsel for the Merchant Service Guild (Mr L. Rose).

Mr Rose suggested that vessels of the Holmglen class should have one or more inflatable life rafts of a type that would give buoyancy and protection from the weather.

Mr Boivin agreed that the chances of the crew’s survival might have been greater had the Holmglen been equipped with inflatable rafts.

He said there was every indication that the life-saving requirements in force had been adequate, “but in the light of this casualty there is a case for them to be provided.” Mr Rose: Will your department recommend it? Mr Perry: May I say here, Mr Rose, that we are going to make such a recommendation.

Later, when Mr Boivin was being cross-examined by counsel for the Holm Shipping Company (Mr D. W. Virtue), Mr Perry said that was the present feeling of the Court. He did not want it thought at this stage of the inquiry that the Court had settled on a definite recommendation. It would like to hear more crossexamination and evidence on the subject.

To Mr Rose, Mr Boivin said that in the absence of direct witnesses it was impossible to obtain direct evidence of the last hours of the Holmglen. Charles Gordon Mallett, of the motor-vessel, Cape Ortegal, in an affidavit, said that when the Holmglen’s May Day signal was received, his ship was sailing from Lyttelton to Dunedin. About that time, winds of force eight were encountered in the area. There were gusts of force nine and heavy seas, including one freak sea. A small vessel might have foundered if struck by such a sea, said Captain Mallet’s affidavit.

Errol Stanley Done, engineer-

ing superintendent of the Holm Shipping Company, said he had assisted in the design of the Holmglen and had been present while she was being built in Holland.

The ship had been fitted with a staysail in case the engine broke down when she was far from port. The sail was not intended to assist the steering. Donne produced a wooden drawer which, he said, had come from under the bunk in the second mate’s cabin on the Holmglen.

On the Holmglen’s delivery voyage he had served as a supernumery engineer. He recalled that on the way to Lyttelton the ship had taken heavy seas over the poop. If the Holmglen shipped seas in the starboard side and the weather doors were open, the water would find its way to the port side of the accommodation.