NO NEGLECT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22356, 29 February 1936, Page 14

NO NEGLECT

EANGATIRA INQUIRY CAPTAIN'S ASSUMPTIONS COURT FINDS JUSTIFICATION REHEARING CONSIDERED [b£ telegraph —OWN correspondent] WELLINGTON. Friday The report of tho Nautical Court which inquired into the circumstances of the mishap to the inter-island steamer Rangatira on the morning of Sunday, February 2, was released to-day. Tho Minister of Marino is carefully consideriug the report with a view to deciding whether the findings of the Court provide adequately for the safety of life at sea, or whether in the public interest a rehearing of the inquiry is necessary under section 243 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908. The president of the Court was Mr. E. ]). Mosley, S.M. The detailed questions submitted to tho Court, and the answers now given, were as follows: (1) What was tho causo of the casualty?—Tho casualty Avas caused by the Rangatira striking the rocks in the vicinity of Sinclair Head, due to the vessel having been diverted from hor course by abnormal conditions. Assumption of Position r (2) Whether the stranding was caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the master or any of his officers or crew? —-The Court does not consider that the stranding was caused or contributed to by anf wrongful act or default of the master or any of his officers or crew, as, with the data which he had at his disposal and with his past experience, he was justified in assuming that he knew his position. (3) Whether subsequent to the stranding there was any neglect or omission of duty on the part of the master or officers, including the wireless operator?— The Court is of the opinion, taking all the evidence into consideration, that subsequent to the stranding of the vessel thero was no neglect or omission of duty. (4) Was the master justified in assuming that the land sighted at 6.2 a.m. was Taurakirae Head?— The Court is of the opinion that the master, under all tho circumstances, was justified. (5) What was tho causo of tho difference between tho actual position at 6.2 a.m. and that estimated by the master?—Tho Court considers that tho difference was caused by an abnormal set to tho north-west, which set wafc tho ! result of the cyclonic disturbance to the eastward of the North Island. Supplementary Questions The supplementary questions addressed to the Court during the hearing, and the answers returned to them. are as follows: CI) Was the fixing of tho ship's position off Cape Campbell open to question P—The Court considers, on the evidence placed before it, that the master was justified in considering his position as being correct. (2) Should the failure to see Capo Campbell light have put the master more on his guard when nearing tho northern coast of the strait? —Tho Court is of the opinion that the masters of ships when making land should always bo on their guard, but failure to see tho light on Capo Campbell, which occurs occasionally in murky weather, would not necessarily put the master more on guard than the circumstances required him to have been (3) Was tho assumption that the landfall was Taurakirae Head too hasty?— The Court considers that under the circumstances revealed by tho evidence the master was justified in assuming that the land sighted was Taurakirae Head, and in altering the vessel's course to the north-west. Soundings No Warning (4) If soundings had been recorded and considered between 5 a.m. and 5.49 a.m., would this not have warned the master that he was making to the westward of his course? —The Court is of the opinion that the soundings would not have warned the master that he was making to tho westward of his course, as the depth of water would have been practically tho samo if the ship was to the westward. If he had been to the westward of his course ho would have been nearer to Capo Campbell light and would probably have been able to see it. (5) Was tho failure to get a bearing from the Tinakori- wireless station when well across tho strait neglect of a necessary or desirable precaution ?—The Court oonsiders that this question should be answered in the negative. Tho subsequent happenings have proved that the obtaining of a direction-finding bearing would have been desirable, but at tho time, and under tho circumstances disclosed by the evidence, the Court does not consider that tho master was negligent in not obtaining one. (6) Under the existing circumstances was not the failure to reduce speed or to stop until the land had been correctly identified neglect of a necessary precaution?— The Court answers this question in the negative. (7) Was too great reliance placed upon the echometer soundings?—Tho Court is of the opinion that the master having kept careful records over a period of four years and proved them by experience, ho was justified in placing reliance on his echometer soundings. Radio Operator's Oallß (8) Was the failure of the radio operator to send tho alarm signal preliminary to tho distress call a culpable omission of duty?— The nautical assessors have advised tho Court that in their opinion, having regard to their lengthy experience and the evidence placed before . the Court, the radio operator did all that was necessary under tho circumstances. In view of this advice and the fact that the vessel was in close communication with a land station u few miles away, and close to a port from which help could bo reasonably expected, I feel compelled to agreo with their conclusion. This opinion must, however, be qualified by tho following observations: If it was intended by tho radio operator that an urgent message was to be sent to tho owners, the letters S.O.S. used by him should not have been used, but tho urgency signal X.X.X. should have been used; if, however, ho intended to send out a distress call, such call should have boon preceded by tho automatic alarm signal as provided by the regulations. With these exceptions the operator did all that he was required to do under the circumstances. (0) Wero not tho information and cautions contained in tho New Zealand Pilot and in the New Zealand Nautical Almanac sufficient to cover the conditions which existed on this occasion?— The Court is of tho opinion that the information contained in tho "publications referred to is of undoubted value to mariners, but the said publications do not inform mariners that there are unusual weather disturbances approaching which might cause abnormal conditions to prevail in local waters. Particular attention is directed to the memorandum of Dr. Edward Kidson, placed before the Court by counsel for the master.