ECHO MISHAP

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 13 December 1932, Page 5

ECHO MISHAP

EVIDENCE AT INQUIRY CONCLUDED QUESTIONS FOR COURT (By Telegraph—Press Association) WELLINGTON, This Day. At the conclusion of the evidence into the Echo inquiry, Mr Prenneville, for the Marine Department, submitted the following questions: (a) What was the cause of the accident? (b) Was any blame attachable to the master? Mr Foden, for the master of the Echo. 1 addressing the Court said that the ex- j planation of the accident was the nature ( of the weather, and the fact that a j squall had come just at the moment it had. It was clear, he said, that a particularly good lookout was kept, and the very fact that not one of the men had been able to estimate the ship’s position suggested that there was a simple explanation. I! any one of the inner or outer lights had been picked up, the master could have altered .his course suitably. In making sure that he would clear Barrett’s Reef, the master kept rather long on his course, which too.: him to the other side of the entrance. If the light could have been seen all would have been well. Hig error, Mr Foden suggested, had been one of overcaution. It was clear that everything possible had been done under the circumstances to make the entrance, hut the night was one that was out of the ordinary. Whatever might be said, the whole thing seemed to depend on the fact that heavy squalls had obscured visibility, and that the' whereabouts of the vessel could not be estimated. He submitted that the incident might reasonably be put down to misadventure. From the evidence there was nothing which showed tho master in a bad light. THE FINDING MASTER AND CREW EXONERATED WELLINGTON, This Day. The Marine Court finding in the scow Echo case is: “In our opinion this casualty was due to a combination of circumstances for which the master connot be held to blame. The casualty was, we think, due to misadventure and was ■not contributed to by any act or default on the part of her master and crew.” The judgment states that as the ves- , sel was nearing the point at which the ' leading lights of the harbour should become visible, a particularly heavy rain squall obliterated the surroundings and made it difficult to efitimate the distance the vessel was from Pencarrow light, no sign could be seen of any light inside Wellington harbour. “In a" normally powered steamer a prudent master would under such circumstances have headed out to sea until visibility improved, but this vessel, being a scow having lowpowered engine and there being a moderate gale blowing and a heavy sea running, such manoeuvre was impossible. The master was compelled to make the entrance.” The fact that the vessel was of such a type a* to be unable in the. weather prevailing to turn and make to windward, and was thus compelled to carry on, and the lact that at the critical time the whole of the harbour lights were obscured by a squall of blinding rain, combined to make tho master’s position one of extreme difficulty. It was necessary for him to carry on sufficiently far to clear Barrett’s Reef, and the absence of any lights other than Pencarrow made it difficult for him to estimate exactly when he had done this. When he finally gave the order for a change of course the vessel was nearing the shore on Pencarrow side, and the difficulty in the wind and weather existing in bringing her round to this course was the final circumstance which led to her striking.”