SINKING OF TUG AT AUCKLAND

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22515, 24 September 1938, Page 10

SINKING OF TUG AT AUCKLAND

Board Criticised By Counsel MARINE INQUIRY CONCLUDED Evidence of Pilots (PEKSS ASSOCIATION TH^ECRAM.) AUCKLAND, September 23. The inquiry into the collision between the motor-ship Essex and the Auckland Harbour Board’s tug Te Awhina, was concluded to-day. 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, of Auckland. • . Captain F. S. Wainhouse, deputyharbodrmaster and licensed pilot, said it was usual for the aft tug to moor in a position that was safe. He did not think it would be possible to get an adequate system of signals. The tugmaster was the best judge of the position to make fast. He had seen Captain Probert berth a number of ships, and he had done so to witness’s satisfaction. To Dr. N. A. Foden (for the Marine Department), witness said the tugmaster had the final decision about where he would moor and no officer on the ship could order otherwise. He believed no text book could be written to cover all sudden emergencies. Every harbour was different from a tugging point of view. To the chairman, witness said a tug should never be closer to the stern of another vessel than 140 or 150 feet. Anything less would involve a risk. There vas a certain amount of responsibility on everyone, but the second officer of the Essex would be justified in assuming that the tug would maintain its position at. right angles. All conditions were fairly favourable. Captain W. A. Beswick. senior pilot to the Auckland Harbour Board, said he ,had never known of instructions being given by the pilot to the tugmaster on the position which the captain should take up. He had never known a tug to moor so far aft that it was under the propellers. “Accidents of this sort would never occur if tugmasters did their duty.” "Is that so?” asked Mr McKean. Witness: That is so. ; Captain David Burgess, master of the tug William C. Daldy, said that unless he was instructed otherwise, the William C. Daldy's position was forward, though sometimes he had been told to go aft. He had never been given precise instructions about where he should make fast. The Te Awhina' could have given all the assistance necessary from a lead further forward: She was not required to slew. Captain Probert wss a competent tugmaster. “Made a Scapegoat*’ ■ Captain Kelsey, pilot of the Essex, who was recalled, told the Court that he had 1 meant that a line should be taken where the tug-master fitted in. Mr Finlay (for witness): Djd you mean where the tug-master thought best? Witness: Yes. . Mr McKean: That is not what you said in your report. Mr Finlay recalled that Captain Probert had said in evidence that he selected a place to moor. "1 feel there has been a substantial conflict of evidence in certain important respects,” said Dr. Foden, addressing the Court. It would appear that the Te Awhina was moored too far aft and in a dangerous position. Who should bear • the responsibility was a matter difficult to decide. It did appear that there was room for improvement in the general system of berthing, and it might be wise if the general system were reviewed. If there was any blame attachable to the use of the watertight doors, It would indicate that periodical tests should be made. “In my experience of marine inquiries I have never known of another case in which the owners have , deliberately set out to crucify one of their own men,” said Mr Moody (for Captain Probert). “Fortunately, however, the matter is in the hands of the Court.” Mr Moody outlined difficulties with which Captain Probert had to contend, and said the whole affair was an unavoidable accident. No suggestion had been made at any time by Captain Probert that Captain Kelsey was responsible. Counsel considered Captain Probert was being made a scapegoat.. Certain things had cropped up which made him suspicious of the whole attitude of the Harbour Board. Captain Probert and a deckhand had stuck to thir ship in the best traditions of the sea. In criticising the “extraordinary line” taken by Mr Moody, Mr Barrowclough (for the Auckland Harbour Board) said that the board had done nothing that was not right and proper. The board was not attacking Captain Probert. On the other hand, the board could riot be held responsible for the accident. The aceident had not shown that the board’s berthing system had broken down, but that an error of judgment was made in carrying out that system. Mr Finlay submitted that not only was the pilot, Captain Kelsey, blameless for the accident, but also that the berthing system was not at fault. Mr McKean said the Court would present its report, when it was completed, to the Marine Department.