NAUTICAL INQUIRY.

Gisborne Times, Volume LIX, Issue 9574, 27 July 1923, Page 6

NAUTICAL INQUIRY.

DAMAGE TO PORT AUCKLAND. BUCKLING DUE TO HEAVY WEATHER, WELLINGTON, July 26. During heavy weather at sea on Juno 27, tho steamer Port Auckland sustained damage to her deck, which made it advisable for the vessel to return to Wellington for repairs. A nautical inquiry was being held to-day before .Mr limit, S.M., Captain Barron, and Mr Lockhead, an engineer. It was mentioned that the vessel was practically new, this being her second trip. Mr Prendcville, for the Customs Department, said tho Department had no suggestion to make, nor any accusation. The purpose of the inquiry ■was to prevent, if possible, a recurrence of such a casualty. J. E. Bridger, chief engineer of the vessel, said she was between 1500 and 1600 miles from New Zealand when she turned back. 'iho deck plates had. been buckled and the deck, beams set up, while the plates and beams were all working very much at the spot. The damage occurred, during the night and was discovered at daylight. = During the night tho vessel took some very heavy seas. After thirty-live years’ experience, he could say lie had* never seen such, a succession of gales as experienced that trip_ for some nine days. Witness was oi opinion the damage was caused- by heavy weather. The chief officer said the master of the vessel joined her in New Zealand, and was not present when the loading was commenced. The vessel, though heavily laden, was not down to her minks* Tho total cargo was 9797 tens while the hunker coal in addition’weighed 3150 tons. The vessel was trimmed before leaving Lyttelton. and was on an even keel, drawing 28ft Din. On leaving Lyttelton gales were encountered, and speed was reduced. Eventually they ran into a huimeane. squall, with phenomenal seas. Witness watched the plates in tho deck. In the heavy seas they pulsated, and undulations ran through the vessel as far as No. 2 hold, ihe stowage was inspected and watched daily. The buckling might have been caused at No. 3 hatch by tie strain on the centre resulting through the vessel losing support amidships when crested on two waves. Since the vessel had been in port the cargo had been restowed and 100 tons removed front No. 3 hold. ® Captain Deith, of the Westmoreland, agreed with centralised stowage, which eased tho vessel. It occasionally happened that other than cargo vessels sustained deck buckling in the centre. Ho thought the eapram v> as correct in returning to port. Members of the crew also gave evidence, attributing the damage to the heavy weather. Evidence was given by members oi tho crow who nil stnLCcl thnt the buckling was due to the heavy sea shipped. Capt. T. Chudley (marine superintendent, Shaw Sayill. and Albion Co.), agreed entirely with the course taken by the captain. It was his duty to decide whether to turn back or to go on. He must decide on the spot and a prudent course was adopted. The method of stowing the cargo in the centre was quite, correct. Captain Brown deposed having joined the vessel at Wellington on June 1. Part of the cargo was already stowed. He saw no reason to shift it. Seven days out damage was sustained. An inspection was made and the vessel procedeed two days before it was decided to return. He said he would stow the cargo exactly the same way again if he had to carry it. The reason why he did not proceed to a South American port was because lie received a wireless from the Mntnkann which stated there were verv rough seas and the vessel would probably not- stand them. Ibis completed the evidence for the Customs Department. The Court is to deliver its report this (Friday) afternoon.—P.A.