KAPONGA FINDING

Hokitika Guardian, 25 June 1932, Page 5

KAPONGA FINDING

COURT’S VERDICT

SOUNDINGS WERE INACCURATE.

(Per Press Association — Copyright.)

WELLINGTON, July 24. The judgment of the Court of Inquiry stated:—

‘‘ln our opinion, there was no justification for the loss of this vessel. There were n 0 difficulties of wind, sea, current, or visibility. The area to be sounded was small, and there was ample time and opportunity for the harbour officials to ha.ve ascertained and supplied correct information as to the position of the bar, and the depth of water thereon.

The heavy south-westerly to westerly weather was calculated to cause . the bar to silt up, and to change its ‘ position and formation, but, no adequate steps were, in our opinion, taken to ascertain such change. We have no reason to doubt that such soundings as were taken, were accurate, bur, with vessels of the size of the Kaponga and the Kalingo—each with ' a beam of over 40 feet, and with a draught descending to within a few feet of the known bottom,-— about to sail, the sounding should, After such weather, hin w e been made at considably closer Intervals, over a [substantially wider area. If these obvious ' steps had been taken, the shoals would have been located and the vessel would not have been lost.”

Holding the-Board responsible, the judgment, said :—The Harbourmaster assured the master of the Kaponga that there would be 21 ieet 3 inches of navigable water on the bar. In fact there was less than 18 feet 6 inches. The information given by the Harbourmaster was thus vitally inaccurate.

In regard to the presence of the master of the Kaponga when the soundings were taken, the judgment sad, he was not entitled to interfere with the. operations, and his presence was to inform himself of the general conditions of the weather swell, set of the tide, and the position cf the bar, rather than to check or interfere with the sounding operations. The Harbourmaster, with intimate daily knowledge, of the harbour, was .the one To decide what soundings he needed to take. 'We think that the master of the Kaponga was justified in relying on the information and the advice given him by the Harbourmaster. It was unfortunate that the master of the Kalingo did not ensure that an adequate whistle was given, when his vessel touched the bar, and. it uas Uhfortunate that those who saw the signal that was given, should have failed to communicate it to the master of the Kaponga, hut in the Court’s opinion the real aud substantial cause of the loss of the vessel was duo to the inaccurate information as to the depth nf water on the bar given by the Harbourmaster to the master of the Kaponga.” '