Whether Wellington Harbour Is "Narrow Channel" Under Rules Of The Sea, Is An Issue

Wanganui Chronicle, 17 June 1950, Page 6

Whether Wellington Harbour Is "Narrow Channel" Under Rules Of The Sea, Is An Issue

Important Point For Inquiry Into The Taranaki-Waipiata Collision WELLINGTON, Last Night (PA).—Whether Wellington Harbour is a narrow channel under the regulations for preventing collisions at sea became the main issue today before the Court of Inquiry into the collision between the Taranaki and the Waipiata, inside Wellington Heads on the night of May 5. A considerable volume of ex- , j „

pert evidence was heard on the point, following a statement by i Dr. Mazengarb, on behalf of the I master of the Waipiata, that the ' ,iimaTy error leading to the col-1 lision was the Taranaki master’s | assumption that he was in a nar- 1 row channel specified by tke' rules. The rule states that vessels! must keep to the starboard or j right-hand side of a narrow channel.

The master of the Taranaki, Captain D. W. Bennett, has stated that he acted in observance of this on his way out of the harbour. The master of the Waipiata, Captain J. J. McNeil, has said he followed the local practice of coastal vessels to enter the harbour on the left hand side of the channel, and also that he acted in accordance with the rule for other than a narrow channel. Mr. McLachlan, S.M.. who is conducting the inquiry, said the narrow channel issue was being raised for the first time. He agreed with a contention by Dr. Foden, representing the Marine Department, that the inquiry had become “a case of the first instance." With Mr. McLachlan as assessors are Captain Neville Riley, master of the Melbourne Star, and Captain John Holm, of Wellington. Dr. N. A. Foden is appearing for the Marine Department; Dr. O. C. Mazengarb, K.C., and Mr. L. G. Rose for the master of the Waipiata; Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell for the master and officers of the Taranaki; Mr. D. W. Virtue for the Union Steam Ship Company, owners of the Waipiata: Mr. E. D. Blundell for the Shaw Savill and Albion Company, owners of the Taranaki; and Mr. W. J. Kemp for the Wellington Harbour Board. Witnesses called this morning by Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell were the ship’s carpenter and the look-out man, who were both on the forecastle of the Taranaki before the collsion. Dr. O. C. Mazengarb. K.C. (appearing for the master of the Waipiata! said that he would call a substantial body of evidence On the question of the ship’s passing. The chairman, Mr. McLachlan, said that this was a very important phase of the whole proceedings and that the harbourmaster should be called. Dr. Foden said that if the harbourmaster were not called by the Harbour Board 'counsel for which was absent from the Court at the time) he himself would call him. David Norman McLeish, a master mariner and captain of the inter-is-land express steamer Hinemoa, said in evidence that as master he had worked the port of Wellington about 2000 times in the last eight years alone. He had always passed departing overseas vessels on the starboard hand and had never known an overseas vessel to pass to port when it was going down the channel. Dr. Mazengarb: Do you regard it as safe or practicable for overseas vessels to pass red to red? Witness: Not in the ships that I have passed. They usually keep over to the left sidet making for the leads. I don't think it would be safe to pass ahead of them. Witness added that he had never found it necessary to use the ship’s whistle in passing overseas ships in the channel. To Mr. Treadwell he said that he knew the “narrow channel’’ rule that ships then pass port to port. He did not consider the harbour entrance a "narrow channel’’ in the navigational sense. NO SET RULE. “There is no rule laid down by the Harbour Board,” continued witness. "The ordinary rule would be for an overseas ship to go out on the starboard side of the channel. Regular ships do not do so. A stranger might do so, but only if he did not have a pilot aboard." Witness said it was not customary to sound the whistle when changing course in the channel or harbour. He said the mandatory rule about sounding the whistle was interpreted with "the greatest liberality” by ships and masters generally. Mr. Treadwell: Do you know that it is a firm rule in the Shaw Savill Company that the whistle must be blown when altering course in sight of another vessel? Witness: It might be, but they don’t abide by it. Mr. Treadwell: What if I assure you that Shaw Savill ships always blow their whistle in such circumstances? Witness: I disbelieve you. To my knowledge they've never sounded a whistle. I have passed all sorts of Shaw Savill ships in the harbour and channel and never once heard one blow the whistle. Mr. Treadwell: Because you didn’t hear, it doesn't mean it was not sounded? Witness: No, but I’ve not heard it once. To Mr. Blundell witness reiterated his opinion that it should not be regarded as a “narrow channel." Witness said he agreed that prompt obedience to rules of the road was essential if two ships were close enough to each other. He also agreed there was some scope for argument whether the Wellington entrance was a narrow channel. If he was taking his vessel out in mid-channel and saw an approaching ship he would go to starboard. An overseas ship could not do this because she would run into the danger of the Falcon shoal, or, if past that. Steeple Rock beacon. That was the basis of his conviction that the entrance was not a narrow channel. Overseas vessels passed incoming coastal ships by going to the left when the narrow channel rules said they should pass on the other side. Mr. McLachlan suggested that this might be because of the habit of coastal vessels to get out of the way of overseas ships, and thus the issue

of the rules had never come up before. “That may be so,” replied witness. To Mr. Virtue, representing the Union Steam Ship Co. Ltd., owners of the Waipiata, witness said the Wei lington Harbour Board, or any other authority, had never informed him the channel was a narrow one. Questioned by Mr. Stevenson, representing the Wellington Harbour Board. Captain McLeish said he regarded the port as one where the ordinary rule of the road applied, uncomplicated by any narrow channel rule. He had heard that one channel over two miles wide had been defined as narrow, but he also knew that channels only a few hundreds wide were not defined as narrow. The law was that the definition ‘'narrow” was applied according to circumstances, not necessarily because of actual widths. Peter Stanley Peterson, former harbourmaster of Wellington, gave evidence that he had taken overseas vessels out of the harbour for 36 years while he was a pilot. Most in - coming coastal vessels used the left hand side of the channel and he took the eastern line of lights further out In hi s opinion the Wellington harbour was not a narrow channel. He believed that any channel Paving more than 2000 feet of navigable water for deep draught ships was not narrow. Captain Alexander Hutchinson Howie said he had held a master’s ticket since 1916. He had been the master of three ships of the inter-is-land ferry service, and he also had been a Wellington harbour pilot. In his experience nearly all coastal vesssel took the left hand side of the channel in their entry. It was prudent for coastal craft to show a stari board light to the starboard light of overseas ships. It was usually recognised that overseas vessels unfamiliar with the harbour needed leading lights down the mid-channel, so the coasters stayed on their left side and complied with the “green to green” rule of the road. Mr. Mazengarb asked the witness if he thought overseas vessels would appreciate this practice being reversed, as it would if the channel was declared narrow. Witness replied that he did not think so, because overseas ships would be forced to a new right hand side, thus losing leading lights and running into possible danger. He had neverregarded Wellington aS a narrow channel, or heard any master refer to it is such, excepting the captain of the Taranaki. Captain Albert Thomas Norton, retired. master mariner, said that in his view the harbour was not a narrow channel, and he had never heard it held, or even discussed, as one. Dr. Foden called evidence on the samp point. USED MID-CHANNEL WATER. Sir Henry Gordon, master of the Dominion Monarch, said he had been in command of Shaw Savill ships for 33 years, and gave his opinion that the channel was narrow. He always waited till he had the channel to himself when leaving, and proceeding to mid-channel. Mr. Stevenson; Do you know that in doing that you are breaking the narrow channel rule?—Yes, that is true. Mr. Stevenson said the rule said that ships under the rule must keep to the starboard side. Sir Henry re. plied he considered it prudent to take the deeper waters of mid-channel. To Dr. Mazengarb, Sir Henry said he had left Wellington at night only once in his 33 years’ experience. He knew’ that coastal masters preferred the west side of the channel coming in. David Martin Todd, harbourmaster of the Port of Wellington, said he did not think anybody had regarded the I channel as narrow. Until the inquiry , he had never heard the matter disI cussed. In piloting hundreds of ships out of port he observed the ordinary rule of the road. The siquiry was adjourned till Monday, when addresses by counsel will be heard.