Both To Blame

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 273, 8 February 1928, Page 9

Both To Blame

FERRY DISASTER FINDING Inquest on Greycliffe Victims NEGLIGENCE on the part of those responsible for the navigation of the Tahiti in exceeding the harbour speed limit and, as overtaking vessel, in not keeping out of the way of the Greycliffe, was the coroner's finding at the inquest on the victims of the Sydney Harbour ferry disaster. He also found that there had been contributory negligence on the part of the Greycliffe’s navigator in not taking the necessary precautions to keep out of the way of an overtaking vessel.

By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. SYDNEY, Monday. THE coroner’s inquiry into the deaths of the victims of the collision ‘between the ferry steamer Greycliffe and the Tahiti on November 3, was concluded to-day. It had lasted 25 days. The coroner returned a verdict of accidental death.

He found that there had been negligence on the part of those responsible for the careful and proper navigation of the Tahiti, in exceeding the speed limit allowed by the law, as the overtaking vessel, in not taking the required and necessary precaution of keeping but of the way of the vessel, which was being overtaken. The coroner said there had been contributory negligence by the officer navigating the Greycliffe in not taking the required and necessary precaution of ascertaining before altering his course, or at the moment when he discovered his vessel’s course was altering, as the case might be, whether or not he was being overtaken by another vessel.

These acts did not in law amount, in the whole circumstances, to criminal negligence. Coroner’s Conclusions

The coroner said he had come to the following conclusions: —That at the time of the collision the Tahiti had attained a speed of about 12 knots. That the starboarding of her helm and the reversing of her port engine when she discovered the Greycliffe was altering her course to port probably made no substantial change in the course or speed of the Tahiti.

That up to the moment of the collision, the Greycliffe had taken substantially her usual course when leaving Garden Island, steering for approximately the same point that the Tahiti was heading for, and attaining a speed of about nine knots when her course altered to port to the extent of from a point to a point and a-half at the moment when the Tahiti was about 300 ft astern of her, and when the courses of the two vessels were about 200 ft apart. Whether the Greycliffe’s alteration of her course was due to the voluntary act of the ferry boat’s helmsman, or performed by him g unconsciously through habit developed by years of practice, the coroner said he could not say. If the chains of the steering gear of the ferry-boat were so slack as to allow such a decided fallingaway in her course, which he doubted, greater care should have been exercised in seeing that they were kept satisfactorily adjusted.

If the bow wave repulsion created by the Tahiti influenced the movements of the Greycliffe at all, it was not until a stage had been reached when a collision was unavoidable.

Continuing, the coroner said that although the Tahiti had followed approximately the proper course for outward-bound sea-going vessels, at the time of the collision she was considerably exceeding the speed limit allowed by the Sydney Harbour Trust’s regulations, namely, eight knots.

Those whose duty it was safely to navigate the Tahiti failed to detect the close proximity of the Greycliffe. Although their courses were only slightly converging they would on a comparatively slight alteration of thk course of

either have been led into an unavoidable collision owing to their relative positions and speeds.

Failed to Keep Look-out

The Greycliffe’s navigating officer was apparently content that while all was clear ahead there was no necessity for him to ascertain, when he noticed his vessel alter course slightly tQ port, whether he was being overtaken by another vessel. Probably not anticipating such a contingency in view of the speed at which his own vessel was travelling he failed to exercise the precaution required by the regulations for preventing collisions at sea. That is, he should have kept a proper lookout. Thus the position was created which those navigating the Tahiti had failed, as the overtaking vessel, to guard against. To complete the unfortunate set of circumstances which led to the disaster it appeared that the ferry boat altered course to port at an earlier stage than usual, whereas if the alteration had been delayed for a further minute or minute and a-half the Tahiti would probably have come into view on her port side. This fact, however, if one of the contributing causes of the collision, did not absolve the officers responsible for the Tahiti. Unsatisfactory Evidence Further than that, the pilot in charge, who was, no doubt, well acquainted with the usual movements of the ferry steamers plying between Garden Island and Nielson Park, may not have anticipated that the Greycliffe’s course would alter until a later stage of her journey. The coroner added that other questions which he felt should in the public interest be mentioned were the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence given by the master of the Tahiti, more particularly his attempt to lead the court to believe the statement taken from him by the New Zealand police was obtained by threats, and made under compulsion. This, in view of the circumstances under which the statement was taken, the coroner said he regretted to say he could not believe, and he was unable to attribute it to unconscious bias: The coroner said he should mention also the fa?t that while the work of rescue and recovery of the bodies was still in progress, and while the attention of the police was fully occupied with that work, the Tahiti left the harbour in continuation of her voyage to New Zealand without an inquiry being made as to whether, in the interests of justice, the police wished to obtain statements from those on board her, and without any intimation to the police that she was then leaving. The sea and harbour pilots have written to the State Superintendent of Navigation desiring that the high esteem in which Pilot Carson is held by every member of the service should be placed on record and brought to the notice of the Treasurer. —A. and N.Z.