PORT WAIKATO MISHAP DUE TO SECOND OFFICER’S FORGETFULNESS

Grey River Argus, 5 June 1948, Page 3

PORT WAIKATO MISHAP DUE TO SECOND OFFICER’S FORGETFULNESS

Entangled Hawser Not Secured WELLINGTON, June 4. . The Court of Inquiry opened today as to' the mishap to the motorvessel, Tort Waikato, which en route from the Chathams to New Zealand, became disabled on May 11 when a wire cable-runner fouled her propeller. She was later towed to Wellington by the Kamo. The court consisted of Mr J. S. Hanna, S.M., and Captains A. T. Norton and A. H. Howie. Dr. N. A. Foden appeared for the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Wellington, and Mr W. H. Cunningham for Holm and Company, who hold the vessel on long-term charter. Dr. Mazengarb, who appeared for the Merchant Service Guild to watch the interests of the captain and the officers, protested at the holding of any inquiry. His appearance was made under protest and without prejudice as to the jurisdiction of the Court. He asserted the court was not properly convened, in that there had been no loss of life. The ship was not abandoned and there had been no material or ‘serious damage. He said: The Merchant Guild is very concerned that of late there appears to have been a tendency to make an inquiry whenever anything untoward happens at sea. This is one case in which, it is contended by the guild, no really good purpose can be served by an inquiry. Publicly, it is well-known what the cause of the happening was. He did not intend to discuss who was responsible for the fact the wripe rope which fouled the boss of the propeller was not properly lashed. Dr. Foden, in reply said counsel had not explained the list of casualties in respect of which an inquiry of the kind could be held. An inquiry could be held following any occasion on which damage. . however trivial, was caused to a British ship. If, after it heard the evidence, the court considered the question of cancellation or suspension might arise—he did not suggest that—then the damage must have been serious before such action could be taken. It might short-circuit any legal argument if he drew the attention of the court to that point at the present juncture. - Dr. Foden continued: “On the general question whether or not there should he an inquiry, the court should agree that this casualty was attended by no serious results, although it might have been otherwise. The vessel was disabled in a simple, but effective fashion, by what is called a. cargo-runner, 2i‘ inches in circumference, fouling the propellor. The master acted with commenable promptitude and efficiency in dealing with the situation that arose, but nevertheless the potentialities of a greater disaster were present. For that reason the Minister thought lit to direct this inquiry.” Henry Carmichael McCormick, engineer ‘and surveyor of ships. Marine Department district office. Wellington, gave evidence that the tailshaft was found to be all right. The intermediate shaft was connected up when the vessel left the slip and tne engines given a trial run. The shaft was definitely out of alignment. The intermediate shaft was then tested for trueness and found all right. The thrust housing was then found to be slack and dropped slightly out of bearing. The thrust housing securing studs had been strained, although this was not apparent to the naked eye. He deduced that they had been strained because the bearing had dropped slightly away from the shaft. When wire was wrapped tightly around the propellor shaft between the propellor boss and ' the stern bush, it would tend to force the shaft in an astern direction, putting strain upon the studs securing the thrust bearing to the engine. Asked by Dr. Foden if the vessel was damaged by the cargo-runner being wound round the propellor, witness replied: “Yes. insofar, as it effectively immobilised the vessel, in addition to the damage mentioned.” Commander A. Keith, master of the Port Waikato, was next witness. Dr Foden said he would not ask for his certificate to be handed in to the court. . . . Mr Mazengarb: "When inquiries are-held, all too frequently masters and officers are asked to hand in their certificate and they have to be handed back only after the findings are announced.” Dr. Foden read Captain Keiths statement at the preliminary hearing that on May 11 he left the course written in the night order book with instructions to be called if the vessel rolled heavily or the weather became bad. He awoke next morning and found, the vessel pile-driving badly and went on the bridge. At 4 a.m. the mate relieved the second mate, but at 4.30 asked witness to take the bridge while he went round the deck to put extra lashings on the. deck cargo. As the vessel was beginning to roll badlv, witness decided to heaveto. He ordered the engineer to reduce speed five revolution. Just then the engines stopped. An examination disclosed a cargo-runner, which had been on top of the passenger accommodation. had its hook caught in the ladder, the other end disappearing under the counter of the ship. The chief engineer told him he could not move the engine either way. Witness gave instructions for the rigging of sail and the ship got under way, 21 knots ahead and one leewav. As he was not sure if he would avoid the north-west reef, he asked the Trawler Manuka by radio to standby. She arrived on May lz and he released her on May 13 on learning that the Kamo was coming to assist. The weather was unsuitable for the shifting of cargo to enable the stern to be lifted out of . the. water and the rope cleared. He inquired of the mate and second mate why the cargo-runner had not been properly secured and the mate said he had left it to the second mate, as it was not his end of the ship. The second mate said that he remembered that he for"’°The 3 °court found that the mishap was caused by. the forgelfulnoss of the second officer* Rn Wyld* His responsibility was to stow away or secure the hawser, which became entangled around the ship’s propellor.