THE MARAMA ACCIDENT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2468, 22 May 1915, Page 12

THE MARAMA ACCIDENT

DUE TO FAULTY CHART CHANGED LIGHT NOT NOTED Tho marine inquiry into tie grounding of tli© Union Steam Ship Company s Marama on t'lie coast of California, near San Francisco, on January 27 last was continued before Mr. W . G. Biddell, S.M., and Captains J. W.Reed nul C F. Post, at tho Magistrates Court yesterday. Mr. P. S. K. 51acassey represented the Manne Departinent and Mr. E. K. Kirkcaldie the master of tho vessel. Captain llobt. Crawford, tho mastoi of the Marama, on the occasion of hoi vovago to San Francisco in January last "gave evidence that he hold a master's "certificate, issued by the New South Wales Navigation Department. The accident happened a few minutes after 6 a.m. on January 27, the vessel striking the bottom at Montara Head, near the entrance to San Francisco Harbour. Considerable damage was done to the bottom of the_ ship, and the contract price for repairing came to something like £18,000. The vessel was insured for £26,000. Her registered' tonnage was 3952 tons. No lives were lost as the result of the accident. He had been master of the Marama from July, 1914. , Mr. Macassey put in tho evidence of the master taken before the Superintendent of Navigation in Sydney, and the chart used,. and Captain Crawford detailed his auctions on the morning or the accident. He was called at four o'clock. In his evidence in Sydney he ha-d stated that he was thrown off his guard as he took the light on Montara Point for the lightship. He did not have the latest chart as it was impossible to get them in Sydney. He got the chart from the Willochra, which £ad been' in the trade.. The second officer supplied a list of the _ charts which could not be procured in Sydney. The firm who supplied the charts reported first that they did not have the-latest chart, having sold out, hut they supplied it later. He did. not know of this till eleven days after tho accident. He had asked the second officer why ho did not report that there wore two charts on board, and the second officer said that he had put the old one away. All that he (the witness) could think, was that the new ouo had been put away. He had made ono oilier voyage to San Francisco. Further examined by Mr. Macassey witness said that oil the Marama there was a book otf the lighthouses of tho world. That was not kept up to date. They depended on the charts mostly. You say this book did not show the alteration from the red light to a white light on the Montara Point?—'"I_ say the Pacific Coast (American) register did not show the alteration." Did this other book show the alteration?—" No." A Faulty Old Chart, Questioned as to the case of the charts witness said that it was. possible for them to get mixed up if anyone interfered with them. He had no note of the alteration of the light on Montara Point. He had not seen the note of it in the Now Zealand Gazette of 1912. He was not in the trade at the time. To Mr. Kirkcaldie: He had no information to put in the book "Lighthouses of the world" as to the alteration of the Montara Point light. He was in the South Sea Island, trade when the alteration was noted in the New Zear land Gazette in 1912, The first step he took on his appointment to the Marama was to get the charts for the San Francisco service. He brought from the Willochra the charts he thought Turner and Henderson, of Sydney, could not supply. The chart he used when tho accident occurred was amongst them. There was no note of the alteration to the light on the chart. Following his own practice he would have expected it to bo noted. The chart had been in both tho Willochra and the Aorangi on the service. _ Captain Neville, of the Willochra, did not inform witness of the change in the Montara light. Up to the time of the accident he did not know of the existence of any other chart of that number. He also had a chart of the extended coast lino, which did not show the alteration from ' a red light to a white light. Mr. Riddell: Did you ask on the Willochra if it was the latest chart?— "I knew it was not tho latest chart, .but the latest we had."

To Mr. Kirkcaldie: When he got to San Francisco on the first voyage he set to work to get the latest information about the Pacific coast. Messrs. Louis and Wieule, tho official chart sellers, sold him the Pacific Coast Guido with the alterations up to _ 1914. The salesman said that it .contained all tho latest information required, with tho supplements and corrections. The Pacifio Coast Guide contained the list of coast lights, but did not show the alteration. The information in the Paoific Coast Guide corresponded with tho information on tho Willochra chart. To Mr. Riddell, witness said that New' Zealand Gazette notices with alterations to lights noted were sent to tho masters of all vessels. "When the alteration to the Montara light was gazetted in 1912 he may have got it on the Tofua, but not being in the trade then, would not have taken particular note of it. _ , To Mr. Kirkcaldie: Witness said that' the supplement supplied _ by Messrs. Louis and Wieule contained _ information that a separate list of lights was published by the United States Government, and that there had been alterations in certain lights. He noticed this on his last trip to San. Francisco, hut the firm had not mentioned it to him. In the list of corrections in tho bookno mentioned was made of the Moutara light, so he had nothing to make him think that there was an alteration. Entarlns San Francisco. He expected to pick up two flashing white lights (not together)—the South Farallon and the lightship—and if driven out of his course a red light on l Montara. He had no_ knowledge that- 1 I there was a third white light in the vicinity. When he picked up the white occulting light he \ assumed it to be the lightship light. There was no other explanation for it. Notwithstanding that he was heading for tho wrong light, his bearings and _ soundings confirmed his assumed position. There was no other way .of verifying hisposition. Ho took tho Montara occulting light for the lightship occulting light. Tho weather was rain;-, and he did not then discover the difference in the occult of the two lights. Tho first officcr wns on the bridge, and he came to tho same conclusion as witness. Before he struck lie put his helm to starboard, to wait for the pilot. When he got to San Francisco after the accident lie applied to the United States Government for nil inquiry, but they would not take it up, and referred witness to tho British Consul. The British Consnl-Gonerai, a, representative of the Board of Trade, took the evidence of tho witness and his officer, and decided it was not necossarv to summon a Naval Court, under (lie British Merchant Shipping Act. To Mr. Riddell: He did not know where lie wns when he struck. Ho just touched niid came off. and then stonmed out till lie nicked up the FarI'Uon liirlit again. lie then picked up tho lightship, and got a pilot. To Mr. Macassey: Me did not see the Montara lisjht on 'his first- I rip to San Francisco because he caino in from the weslwnrd. Alfred Winslow, chief officer of the Maramn agreed - ( lo his evidence taken in Sydnoy. None of the officers were atrjire of IV, .iltei-ation of th« Mnntar* litflU from tod to tvliiu,. Sa eQuJi .

help admitting that if he had been in charge of the ship he would have douo the samo thing. To Mr. Macassey, ho could not explain how the old chart had come to tho top. The other officers had been questioned, but. no explanation was found. On the previous trip ho thought it was daylight when they entered, and ho did not notice the Montara light. To Mr. Kirkcaldie: On the first voyage they had deviated 200 miles to the westward under Admiralty instructions, to avoid German cruisera, and they did not pick up Montara light. He shared the belief of tho captain that they had only to pick up two White lights. He knew nothing about tho new chart till the charts wero disturbed eleven days after the accident by tho third officer. John M'Culloch, second officer, of the Marama. in his evidence in Sydney, which was read, said that he got the new chart from Turner and Henderson in Sydnoy. When tho captain brought tho old chart from the Willochra, witness put it in the bottom of tho draw. He did not draw the captain's attention to this particular chart. He did not have the slightest knowledge of the alteration of the Montara light. To Mr, Macassey: Ho did not compare the lights on the new chart with the old chart, to see if any alterations woTe made, because the new chart was marked as corrected to 1914. To Mr. Kirkcaldie: He did not notify' tho captain that the new chart wns there. Ho was under the impression that being used. Ho put the old chart away, out of use, and the new chart on the top of the file, but as a matter of fact the old chart was used on tho dato of the accident. Mr. Kirkcaldie: You say tho new chart was used on the first voyage?— "Yes, as far as I know, for there was a track marked on it." Would it occur to the officers to look for the Montara light on the first voyage ?—"No, not from the course taken?" Mr. Riddell: You say there were markings on the new chart on the first voyage?—" Yes." If there are no marks or signs of erasure would you say you were mistaken ?—"I wouldn't go so far as that." There is no doubt about a course marked on the old chart, but there is considerable doubt about one on the new chart?—" Well, I have Eeen one marked on it." • • A Wrong Assumption, Further, witness said he could offer no explanation as to how the old chart came to be in use. He assumed that the new chart was being used. He would have thought it strange to see the captain using an old chart when there was a new one on the ship. Mr. Macassey then submitted the following questions to the Court:—(l) What was the cause of the accident? (2) Whether the stranding of, and serious damage to the ship, was caused by, or contributed to by, the wrongful act or the fault of the master or any of his officers ? (3) Did the master or any of his officers fail to take the necessary and proper steps to obtain information in regard to the lights by which the Marama was navigated into the port of San Francisco P . Recalled by Mr. Kirkcaldie, Captain Crawford said that the old chart was being used when the accident oocurred. Eleven days after the accident he went into the chart room, and found the new chart on top of the old one. He called the chief officer, and asked if he could give an explanation, and also asked the third officer, as the second officer was ashore. He oould only find out that the third officer had disturbed the charts on the previous day, when looking for the magnetic chart. That was the first time that it was brought to his knowledge that there were two charts. He could not say whether it was the one used on the previous voyage.

To Mr. Macassey: The practice was to put the old charts away carefully, so that they should not bo used again. The old chart in question should not have been kept like that. It should have been rolled up and marked. Mr. Macassey recalled the second officer: "Why," he asked, "was this condemned chart kept in the drawer with the other charts?" Mr. M'Culloch.: Well, I was not aware that it was condemned. It was limply kept at tho bottom of draw out of the way. ~ Is that a proper way to keep it?— "Well. that is the drawer all charts are kept in. I was not aware that there was any alteration in the light, and as there was a new chart, I kept it on the top." Wly was not that chart put away in some other drawer?—" There was no reason that it should," Mr. Riddell: Was not the position this, that you left two charts at the bottom, one the old and the other the new?—"No: the old chart was at the bottom of the right-hand side, under about a dozen charts, and the new chart was the second or third down on the left-hand side." ; This concluded the evidence, and the Court decided that it was not necessarv to hear counsel. Right was reserved to _ them to address the Court before decisiou was given. The Court took a couple of hours to consider the evidence before delivering its decision. The Court's Finding. Later, in delivering the judgment of the Court Mr. Riddell said that after hearing the evidence the Court was of opinion that the accident was an extraordinary one, and that under ordinary circumstances should not have occurred. But it not occur' as the result of a set of circumstances which would probably never again' happen. The ivjole thing was extraordinary. The finding of the Court to tho questions put was:— (1) "Tho cause of the stranding of the s.s. Marama was due to Captain Crawford mistaking the Montara light lor that of tho San Francisco light vessel." (2) "The Court is of opinion that the stranding of and serious damage to the ship was not caused by or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of Robert Crawford, tho master, but the Court is of opinion that the mishap was contributed to by the neglect of the second officer, John M'Cuiloch, to inform the master of tho existence on the. ship of a chart later in date than that used by the master prior to and at the time of stranding." (3) "The Court considers that the master and his officers took all reasonably necessary and proper steps to obtain information in regard to the lights by which the Marama had to be navigated into the port of San Francisco." Mr. Kirkcaldie addressed the Court on the question of costs, and said that Captain Crawford had been put to an expense of from £50 to £60, besides loss of wages. Counsel had writtento the Minister of Customs, protesting that the holding of an inquiry hero might cause - an injustice to Captain Crawford, and he had sinco had evidence that complaints had been made of the confusion in the lighting system of San Francisco, and he had evidence I lint many masters in Sim Francisco had never seen the Montara light, and Were not aware of its alteration. The British Consul, who took evidence in Sau Francisco, although he had power to niako nn inquiry, after evidence, decided it was not necessary. There iv.-Ia no Noiv Zealand cargo oil tho vessel no New Zealand lives were lost, and the owners had held their own inquiry. and were satisfied. The master had been asoncrated, and lie submitted that liberal costs should be allowed. Mr. Macassey replied that it was tho Auty of the Minister In order an inquiry, and the Court decided that whils tliey sympathised with the captain, they could net, order any cosls. Tho application for costs was refused. In answer to Mr. Macassey, who said t.Viat. lie lisd not. quite linderffnod the fieeild ftlirlini:. th« Court, said that- th« Jm&Md no iMiult'*. QA the twuvi ollk