THE PENGUIN DISASTER.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9384, 2 March 1909, Page 5

THE PENGUIN DISASTER.

JUDGMENT OF THE NAUTICAL COURT. Press Association. Wellington, March 1, The judgment of the Nautical Court that inquired into the wreck of the Penguin was delivered as follows at 5.30 this evening:— Question I.—Whether the said vessel was seaworthy and properly found, particularly in regard to the lifeboats and other life-saving appliances, and whether such appliances were sufficient and efficient and properly attended to, and whether boat drill was properlyx carried out on the said vessel. Answer: That the evidence discloses the said vessel to have been seaworthy and properly found in regard to the lifeboats and other life-saving applioances; that snob appliances were sufficient and efficient and properly attended to; and that boat drill was properly carried out on the said vessel.

Question 2: Whether, unde? the existing weather conditions, at any time after 9 p.m., shelter should have been sought and the vessel’s head put out to sea instead of her course being continued to Wellington. ” Answer; That under the existing weather conditions, considering the vessel had run a course of 18 miles at 9.40 p.m., the ship’s head should have been put to sea instead of her course being continued to Wellington ; and that, under the existing circumstances, the master was guilty of a breach of Article 16 of “The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. ” (Article 16 reads: ‘‘Every vessel shall, in a fog, mist, or heavy rain storms, go at moderate speed, having careful regard to the existing circumstances a&d conditions.)” Question 3: Generally, what was the cause or what were the causes to which the said casualty was due? Answer-: That the cause of the said casualty was the presence of an exceptionally strong flood tide, coupled with a breach of Article 16 by the master of the vessel and with his failure, under existing circumstances, to put to sea when he had run a course of 18 miles.

Question 4: In particular whether the said casualty was due to, or contributed to by, the negligence or wrongful act or default of any parson or persons on the said vessel and, if so., who were such person or persons, and what was the nature of such negligence, w roQ gf u l act, or default. •

Answer; That in particular the said casualty was contributed to by the default of Francis Edwin Naylor, the master of the said vessel, in not putting his vessel’s head to sea sooner than he did, and in not complying with Article 16, already reterred to.

Question 5: Could the said casualty reasonably have been prevented, and, if so, how? Answer: That with the distance run up to 9.40 p.m., with the weather thick and rainy, and with neither land nor lights at Pencarrow in sight, the casualty would have been prevented if the vessel’s head had then been put towards safety. When the vessel struck some 32 minutes later the master was doing that which the Court considers he should have done when closing with the land in thick weather.

Question 6 : After tbe casualty were all reasonable and proper precautions taken to prevent loss of life, and, if not, what precautions that ought to have beengtaken were omitted? Answer: That after the casualty happened everything that could be reasonably done to prevent loss of life was done by the master, officers and crew.

Question 7: Whether, under the circumstances shown by the evidence soundings should have been taken, and, it so, after what time? Answer: That, under the circumstances shown by the evidence, as the master did not put his vessel’s head to safety, he ought to have taken soundings. Question 8 : Whether it is necessary or desirable that coasting vessels should be fitted with patent sounding gear? s Answer: That, although not actually necessary, it would be a great assistance to masters if coastal vessels were provided with patent sounding apparatus. The Court considers that lifeboats of vessels should have some means fitted whereby a steer oar could be used when required, and that when having boat drill and when the boats are lowered in the water an opportunity should be given to members of the crew to acquire the knowledge necessary to handle such an oar. It also considers that the Marine Department should obtain the latest data re the phenomenal currents obtaining at times in OOok’s Strait, that full information on tbe subject should be put before the Admiralty, and that all mariners should tbe made aware of tbe dangers attending tbe navigation, especially during hazy or thick rainy weather. In view of the facts in this case tbat all the boats capsized and floated ashore bottom up, it would suggest tbat a simple appliance should be fitted, say a line of similar material to the life line already fitted on lifeboats, to the gunwale on one side, taken through a hole in the boat’s keel'and brought up to the opposite gunwale at suitable distances apart. Remarks were made during the hearing of the case as to the speed of the currents marked on the charts. In reference thereto the Court desires to draw attention to the instructions contained' in the introduction to the “New Zealand Pilot.” which instruotions are common to all thd Admiralty publications of that nature and have special importance in the case of vessels navigating Cook’s Strait. The Court would refer more especially to paragraph 9 on page 12, and paragraph 10 on page 13,, They are as follow :—9 “Tides and Tidal Streams”: In navigating coasts where the tidal range is considerable caution is always necessary. It should be remembered that there are indraughts to all bays and bights although the general run of the stream may be parallel to the shore. 10. “Current arrows on charts only show the most - usual or the , mean direction of a tidal stream or current. It must never he assumed that the direction of a stream will not vary from that indicated by the arrow. In the same manner the rate of a stream constantly varies with circumstances, and the rate given on the charts is merely of the mean of those found during the survey—possibly from very few 1 observations. The Court is far from satisfied that the vessel struck on Tom’s Rock, but is unable, from the evidence, to definitely locate the scene of the wreck.

Considering the undoubted presence of an exceptionally heavy flood tide, the Court is of opinion that the suspension of the master’s certificate for twelve months . will meet the circumstances of the cases, hnt also, considering the anguish of , the master, aud having no desire to ruin him financially, no order will be made as to costs. ' The Court desires to express its heartfelt sympathy with the relatives of those who have been lost in this national disaster. His Worship added that every point was gone into, and, whatever might be said as to the verdict, it was the honest, conscientious opinion of the Bench. Mr Herd man: Will yonr Worship fix the costs of appeal? His Worship said he would fix the matter with Mr Herd man and Mr Myers iu Chambers. He would take the question as notice of appeal. A DISSENTING JUDGMENT. Captain McArthur dissented from some of the findings. He held that the master was justified in altering his course. There was heavy "rain at the time he altered his course from S.E. by E. to E. by S., apd he considered Captain Naylor was guilty of a breach of the regulations (“Prevention of Collisions”) in not moderating the speed of his vessel, although he did not think, taking the currents into account, tnis would have prevented the casualty. The cause of the casualty, iu his opinion, was an exceptionally strong flood tide setting the vessel out of her course. He did not think the casualty could have been reasonably anticipated, and he did not think soundings would have been reliable, considering the vast differences in the depth of the Straits at snort distances. Soundings would have been

of material use after getting to the vicinity of Pencarrow. THE INQUEST. THE JURY’S YERDIOT. Wellington, March 1. The following is the verdict of the jury concerning the Penguin disaster : I.—That Mrs Brittain and others came to their death by by the wreck of the Penguin. 3.-That the course laid down by Captain Naylor would under ordinary circumstances have been perfectly safe, but was affected by adverse winds and contrary tides and currents, having lost his bearings through the thickness of the weather no lights being visible after 830 p.m. The vessel struck upon some object, the exact locality of which has not been defined, a total wreck. 3. That the conduct of Captain Naylor and the crew of the Penguin after the vessel struck was in all respects admirable. 4. That on the evidence submitted it is apparent all was done by rhe Union Steam Shipping Company, the police, and Mr and Mrs McMenamen, and their men for the care of the dead and the welfare of the survivors that conld be done under the circumstances. 5. -That having regard to the number of wrecks in this vicinity and with a view to preventing the recurrence of such a deplorable disaster as the wreck of the Penguin and the consequent loss of life, the jury is of opinion that a light on Tongue Point is desirable, and its erection should be considered favourably by the Marine Department.

(>.—That the jury is of opinion that steps should be taken speedily by the Marine Department to locate the hull of the Penguin.