NAUTICAL INQUIRY CONTINUED

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22514, 23 September 1938, Page 12

NAUTICAL INQUIRY CONTINUED

SINKING OF TE AWHINA AUCKLAND HARBOUR ACCIDENT EVIDENCE OF ENGINEERS AND MATE MOORING POSITION OF TUG DISCUSSED . ' i (PB*BB ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) AUCKLAND, September 22. The nautical inquiry into the sinking of the Auckland Harbour Board’s tug Te Awhina on August 'll was continued in the Magistrate’s Court today. Mr W. R. McKean, S.M., presided. The nautical assessors were Captain H. R. Hughes, of Devonport, and Captain R. J. Hamilton, of Bluff. The engineer assessor was -Mr W. H. Parker, olLAuckland. • Continuing his evidence. Captain Kelsey,-pilot on the' Essex, admitted to Mr Finlay that the decision, in ordinary circumstances, ; to - put the Te Awhina aft. and the stronger tug, William C. Daldy, forward, was made at a confererifce of pilots and the harbourmaster, when the William C.- Daldy arrived in Auckland. There was, therefore no point in references to the greater speed of the William C;- Daldy, and that she'took the forward position because the Te Awhina “always followed on.” It was left to the,discretion of the tugmaster to tie up in a safe position. To the chairman, witness said that there had been no previous accident of the sort.- Tugs were often drawn in against the side of a ship, but it was the first time one had been struck by propellers. ‘ ’ To Mr Finlay, Captain Kelsey , said that conditions at Auckland made it necessary to use the engines nearly all the time. The safety of the ship being berthed depended upon that. The last resort of a tugmaster when he felt his ship being drawn under the propellers was to steam well ahead. A signal from the tug might give the pilot an opportunity to help if there was time, but if what Captain Probert said was correct, no signal could have been given in time to save the Te Awhina. To Dr. Foden (for the Marine Department), Captain Kelsey said he knew nothing of an incident with “an American ship” that was responsible for a conference regarding the position of tugs. . , Doors Examined

William Mowatt, surveyor of ships, described the examination .of the Te Awhina between May 16 and May 28 last. The watertight door wa? .functioning properly. After the'tug was put on the slip he found it was working satisfactorily. To Mr Baxter (for the acting-chief engineer), witness said that the handle of the door was on the wrong way. He could not understand, if -the' engineer said he tried it both ways, why it could not be closed. To Mr Moody (for Captain Probert)., witness said that an order should be given from the bridge for the doors to be closed, but that he would act on his own initiative if in a position of danger, and inform the captain of what he had done. .... Witness told Mr McKean that the door could be closed in a minute and a half. . - - To Dr. Foden. he said that he' did not know whether the ship would have floated if the door had been closed. John Kerr, who assisted in the annual survey, said that the pumps were in good order. He did not think the pumps could have competed with the rupture.

Engineer’s Actions

Arthur George Graham Aspland, acting-chief engineer of the Te Awhina at the time of the accidait, gave evidence that he heard a, striking sound and knew they were on the Essex. Just before that he received a signal for more power, but was unable to give it because they were already on full power. He looked at the bilge immediately and saw water; rushing in. He realised that a desperate situation had arisen. r !

Dr. Foden: Did you consider the position hopeless? Witness: Yes, sir. Aspland added that lie told, the second engineer to hold on as long as he could, and made <tfor the deck to tell the master. He told the second engineer to be ready to “beat it.”

“I told the master to make for the beach as quickly as he could—if he could get there,” added Aspland. “I had to shout for I was on deck. Before that I saw the mate and said, ‘Let go, she’s done.’ I think the master heard mf clearly.” Dr. Foden: Did the master give you any directions? . Witness: No. Df. Foden; Did you expect any? Witness: Not at the time.

Witness said he proceeded to deal with the watertight doors on his own ihitiatiMe, but was unable to work the handle either way. He had heafd since that the door worked when the vessel was salvaged. , He could not explain that beyond the fact that the tug had been crushed under, the side of the Essex. Control of Ship Dr. Foden: Was there a certain amount of divided control on the ship? Witness: I think I can explain that. The engineer has charge of certain eqmphnent on the ship. He would mostly carry out the captain’s instructions. He added that he did not hear_the captain give instructions to anyone. Dr. Foden; What was he doing’ • Witness: I couldn’t see him from where I was attending to the watertight door. I tried to go back to the engine-room to investigate, but couldn’t get there. I met the second, engineer and fireman coming up. They didn’t have their personal effects with them; I could see the water about three feet above the plates. Aspland said that he/ made/ for the boiler tops and tied the safety valve open to release ’ steam to avoid an

explosion. He was quite calm and cool. The engines had actually stopped, before he let off steam. Dr. Foden: Is it usual for the chief engineer to follow the course that you did in ordering your men to leave .the vessel. . . Witness: I am responsible for the safety of mv men. I do not consider that on a ship the chief engineer can leave his ship with his crew, but on a tug we have to assist each other. We have only a small staff. My report to the captain was the equivalent of asking if we could get away. Discipline on a tug is more free and easy, but each man has to do what he is told by his superior officer. In cases of- emergency I think the chief -tengineer should be able to decide.

Stopping of Engines _ In explaining the stopping of the engines, witness said the water in the engine room would put the circulating pumps out of commission. To the Magistrate witness said the water-tight doors were not tested, except at the annual -survey. Jack Albert Peterson, acting-second engineer on the Te Awhina, said he could give no reason why the engmes stopped. They just did so by their own accord. He stayed in the engine room until the water was up to his waist -and left’ when someone called out to “beat it” He could have done nothing to keep the'engines going any longer. He tobk his instructions to leave the tug from the chief engineer. William Thomas James Clare, ■ shipwright, employed by the Auckland Harbour Board, described the efforts he made to close the watertight door when the tug was later partly submerged. With the assistance of a piece of pipe for extsa pressure, he eventually worked the door. Moses Thomas Morris, mate of the Te, Awhina, said he was on the foredeck of the tug when the accident happened. When the tug swung along- • side the ship, she slipped forward, and swung under the quarter of the Essex. The ebb tide would assist m that movement. He did not notice the Essex move forward ht that lame, and there was not a great amount of from, her -propellers. After they had cast off, and were near the end of'Queen’s wharf, witness called to the master of the launch .Ferro to come to their assistance. When the Ferro came alongside, witness jumped, on board, and gave a tow line to the deck, hand lor the purpose of towing. “Hallway-, between Queen’s and Prince’s 'wharves, the came up,” witness added. I let go me line to the Ferro, and jumped on to the Presto, got a line from Captain Probert, and passed it up to the captain of the Presto. Then I got another line on to the Ferro. Then I stood by. I did all this on my own initiative-. Considering that an emergency had arisen, and that I was justified m what I did. I do not consider I should_have waited orders from the master. vThere were no orders given about anything.

Warning to Captain

Witness added that he considered that in the circumstances, the action of other members in leaving the ship without instructions was justified. There was no sign of panic. To Mr Barrowclough (for the Auckland Harbour Board), witness said that when they moored to the Essex he had called out to Captain Probert that they were too far aft; but the master made no response. Witness concluded that Captain Probert was satisfied, and did. hot' repeat-his *waming. - Counsel; Were there any other occasions when you had to speak to the captain about the mooring position. ■ Witness; I did so, either at the berthing of the Monterey or . the Mariposa ' some time ago, when I was told that . if I could do any better, I could come up and do it. Because I was ignored .on the previous occasion. I did not re->;'. peat my warning this time. .Witness-, said, he went on board the Ferro-because there -was no one else to make the, line, fast, the captain of the launch bdingSthe only occupant.

and being engaged in steering it. 4 To Mr Moody, witness'admitted That he had not told the harbour authorities that he had warned Captain Probert that he was too far aft until about a week 1 - ago. • He had not seen- thf second officer, of the Essex aft. Ho one from the ship had called out that the tug was. too far aft. Asked' who was responsible for the watertight door,' witness said the engineers should have “been at them.”

James Davies, deckhand on the tug, said he heard the mate tell Captain Probert that the tug was moored too tar aft; but the captain might not have . heard. In his opinion the tug. was drawn in through the fact that there - was' an ebb tide, and-that the Essex: was moving forward, creaiting suction.

Witness realised that .they were getting into trouble; but he did not say anything, believing that Captain Probert would handle the position. Later, witness ■ said, the situation developed so quickly that the captain could not have done anything. He did not leave the tug with the engine-room staff because he was standing by to make the launches fast. He heard no orders or remarks regarding the possibility of an explosion.

Deckhand Congratulated

At the end of witness’s evidence. Dr.'; Foden congratulated him on the way he had carried out his duties. “We cannot blame anyone because of the fail* ure to put the pumps into action, because it appears that they would have been ineffective in the circumstances,” Dr. Foden said later.

Captain Sergeant, harbourmaster at Auckland, in describing the arrangements for berthing the Essex, said that a strong ebb tide had been expected, and the pilot had asked that he should be allowed two tugs. The master of a tug was responsible for the position in which 1 he .'placed his tug alongside a ship.' To the Magistrate, witness denied that the William C. 1 Daldy, being the more 3 valuable tug. was customarily placed 3 in the forward position as that was 3 safer. Witness also denied a suggestion that the William C Daldy had got into difficulties with an American steamer. /The system of signalling used at Auckland had always worked satisfac- - torily, and no serious difficulties had ever arisen from this cause. In his opinion the accident was caused through an error of judgment on the part of the master of the Te Awhina, in placing his tug so far aft on the Essex. The accident was in no way due to any defects in the tugging system _in operation at the port. Witness said he declined to answer questions by Mr Moody as to who had given instructions that Captain Probert was not to go back on board the Te Awhina., and .Mr Barrowclough objected that such questions were‘irrelevant.

The Magistrate said he did not think such questions had a bearing on the inquiry.

The„ inquiry was adjourned,