ABEL TASMAN WRECK

Evening Star, Issue 22414, 11 August 1936, Page 14

ABEL TASMAN WRECK

PARTED MOORINGS AT GREYMOUTH SPECIAL FLOOD PROVISIONS RECOMMENDED MASTER, OFFICERS, AND GREW COMMENDED [P*b United Press Association.] GREYMOUTH, August 10. The inquiry into the wreck of the Abel Tasman was concluded. The court was asked five questions, to which it returned the following answers: — L (a) Was the vessel moored in accordance with the practices of the harbour? —Yes. (b) Was the vessel moored to the satisfaction of the harbour master?—Yes. The evidence shows that the harbour master, the vessel’s master, and the officers had given strict attention to the safe mooring of the vessel. 2. Could the practice of the harbour as to moorings in flood conditions be improved by the Harbour Board providing special moorings for floods?— Yes (memoranda to be prepared embodying the recommendations). 3. Is it possible that the casualty would have been avoided if the engines had been turning and ready for instant use? —Not in our opinion (the reasons, to be amplified in a report to the Minister of Marine). 4. Was everything possible done to save the vessel after she broke away? —Yes. The court considers that the master, officers, engineers, and crew acted in a prompt, soamanlike manner, and are to be commended therefor, the master in particular. 5. Was the casualty caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the master or any of bis crew or of the Harbour Board or any other person?—Not in so far as the master or any of bis crew were concerned, but the court desires to consider further this question in relation to the Harbour Board and its officials. The master (William Archibald) and the first mate (Peter Dalziel) bad their certificates returned to them unendorsed.