SHIP COLLISION WAS “AVOIDABLE”—- WAIPIATA’S CAPTAIN FOUND TO BE MOSTLY AT FAULT

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 June 1950, Page 3

SHIP COLLISION WAS “AVOIDABLE”—WAIPIATA’S CAPTAIN FOUND TO BE MOSTLY AT FAULT

WELLINGTON, June 22 (P.A.).— The Court of Inquiry into the collision between the Taranaki and the Waipiata inside Wellington Heads on May 5, found today that both the master of the Waipiata (Captain J. J. Macneil) and the master of the Taranaki (Captain M. H. J. Bennett) were unduly tardy in acting under the regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea. It considered that most of the blame for the collision should not be apportioned because of “the inevitable nature” 0? the accident. The rest of the blame was found to be three parts Captain Macneil’s and one part Captain Bennett’s. In fixing the attachable blame, the court said that it did not desire any civil court to feel influenced by its findings of fact or expressions of opinion, because of “the conflicting nature of the evidence and the complexity of the causes of this disaster, which bring to mind the complexity of the causes of an economic disaster or slump.” The court said that both captains acted with skill and good seamanship after the collision, and that no blame for the collision could be attributed to the Wellington Harbour Board or its servants. ■ It suggested that questions of pilotage and navigation of the channel might be worthy subjects of consideration by the board and the Marine Department. “Collision Was Avoidable” The collision was definitely avoidable by the simple application of one or two of the articles of the regulations that should be the catechism of all mariners and in an emergency used automatically, said the court. It was clear that had the master of the Waipiata some eight minutes before the impact applied ordinary preunder the regulations ana appreciated that an overseas ship was meeting him in a difficult part of the channel “end on or nearly end on, he would have made certain manoeuvres and maintained the same caution. Then, three or four minutes before the collision, at which stage a collision should have been seen pos sible, he would not have left his opponent in any doubt as to his observance of the rules, would have slowed his ship, and would, when replying (as he thought) to the other ship’s movements, have sounded his whistle as prescribed by the regula- ' Some three er four minutes before the collision both masters admitted having said: “What the hell is this fellow doing?” Clearly at this stage both vessels should have slowed, stopped, or gone full astern. On the contrary, however, though the evidence was fairly convincing mat the Taranaki contemplated a collision and the appropriate rules, the Waipiata continued at full speed to make further manoeuvres and failed io make any signals whatsoever. “Rather Bold Action Though the court felt a certain apprehension at the rather bold action of the master of the Taranaki m taking his first trip by night in indifferent weather without a pilot or witnou. appraising himself (as regularly did his commodore, Sir Henry Gordon) of possible incoming vessels, and in a portion of the channel more to the east than he should have been on his own designation of the harbour as c narrow channel,” it was with the las few minutes before the collision tha the inquiry was more deeply conrprncd. The court felt that before the inci-

dent Captain Bennett displayed a degree of venturesome boldness not always to be unreservedly commended. It did not, however, feel that these “pardonable errors of judgment” contributed to the collision in some serious way as did Captain Macneil’s nonobservance of the rules for preventing collisions.

Captain Macneil’s failure to move to starboard in accordance with the “end on” rule was his most crucial error of judgment, and it enhanced considerably the risk of collision. Consideration had been given to the fact that Captain Bennett did not stop to consider the possibility of a. local rule which, though at first sight it appeared to infringe on the international rule, had the sanction of the Marine Department, the Wellington Harbour Board, and almost the entire body of mariners operating vessels in the port.

Promulgation Of Local Rule The court did not consider the issue of whether Wellington was “a narrow channel” affected the captains’ actions before the collision. It did, however, feel that the matter should be clarified by the promulgation of the local rule or by definite instructions to mariners through the Nautical Almanac. . , . , A conflict of evidence existed as to the second of the three movements of the Taranaki, but the court was satisfied that Captain Bennett’s commands were all to the left. It thought that Capain Macneil genuinely believed that he saw the Taranaki’s green light, indicating a right turn, but that he might have mistaken the green section of the Somes Island light for the Taranaki. It was quite clear to both nautical assessors that in the few moments of time at their disposal the captains’ impressions of sightings, manoeuvres, lights, and positions could easily and intelligibly be in error. No order, was made on costs. The court consisted of Mr A. A. McLachlan, S.M. and the two assessors, Captain N. Riley and Captain J. Holm.