Vessels Reduced Margin of Safety

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 295, 5 March 1928, Page 9

Vessels Reduced Margin of Safety

COOK STRAIT AFFAIR NAUTICAL INQUIRY’S FINDING Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., gave his decision after the nautical inquiry into the incident in Cook Strait on February 3, in which the Maunganui and Tamahine were concerned. The question was whether the masters of either, or both ships, did navibate their vessels in such manner as to endanger the safety of either or both vessels, as the vessels were travelling at a speed almost equal. Both masters must have been aware that the necessary changes in their course, required to place their vessels on their respective routes, would eventually bring them closer together and reduce the margin of safety then existing, said his Worship. The Tamahine was the following vessel and her course to Picton crossed that of the Maunganui. Under these conditions the duty of the master of the Tamahine was to observe the articles of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea. Similarly the duty of the Maunganui was to observe the article which lays it down that, where by any of the rules, one or two vessels is to keep out; of the way of the other, the other shall keep her course and speed. After reviewing the evidence, Mr. Riddell said that the captain of the Tamahine, by following the Maunganui too closely, eventually found himself in a position of difficulty, and was compelled to take prompt steps to regain his margin of safety. The weight of evidence was not sufficient to warrant the Court finding that the safety of either ships was endangered, but the occurrence was of a nature which could easily have been avoided if the master of the Tamahine had observed the rules. He ordered the respective parties to pay their own costs.