M Pigneguy Doesn’t Know The Rule For Signaling Equipment

ALBANY, New Zealand - June 3, 2014 - PRLog -- M Pigneguy Doesn’t Know The Rule For Signaling Equipment

So why didn’t Seaway have a horn complying with Appendix 3 relating to audibility & frequency, which for a vessel For Seaway’s size requires a range of 1 nmile ?

The testing report by Maritime New Zealand reads - “Audible at .25 nmile, faint at half a nmile” & the aerosol’s appearance indicates that it’s nowhere near adequate to be a substituted ship’s whistle for a vessel of Seaway’s size.

Bolton asked M Pigneguy “Why didn’t Seaway have a horn that was complying with Maritime Regulations ?”

M Pigneguy insolently replied “I suggest you ask Sealink management about that”

Bolton – “Well, that’s what they gave you to use & it wasn’t adequate”

M Pigneguy – “What would you like me to say ? …I haven’t studied the frequencies, sound frequencies, whatever you suggest, so I can’t say yes or no, I’m sorry.”

Bolton – “So we agree the horn is not adequate ?”

M Pigneguy - “I can’t agree or disagree, that’s not within my scope of knowledge, I’m sorry … I assume that I had to sound it if you were keeping a proper lookout & on the relative bearing”

Bolton – “Well if you had kept your original course you would have been right”

So there is M Pigneguy who had used that handheld inadequate aerosol hooter for so long he must’ve thought it was ok & he didn’t know it was in violation of Appendix 3 – he didn’t even know about Appendix 3 of the Maritime Rules – probably not knowing there was an Appendix at all.

The reason for the specific audibility & frequency range for a particular size of vessel is that it gives the listening vessel an idea of the sounding vessel’s size when visibility is limited. The larger the vessel the deeper the frequency & louder the sound is, to be heard up to 2 nmiles away.

M Pigneguy was using a hooter suitable for a dinghy or small runabout & neither he nor Maritime NZ were concerned in the slightest. Having a deficiency of this magnitude would have violated Seaway’s certificate of operating compliance.

This violation was totally responsible for the inability of Seaway to be heard when M Pigneguy did belatedly use his small aerosol hooter. No alert of concern was made or  heard at the appropriate time on adequate equipment.

Further more M Pigneguy did not know his responsibilities  according to Maritime Rules regarding the use of a ship’s whistle in this approach which in his misguided opinion held a risk of collision apart from the risk he was manufacturing.

Further paucity of M Pigneguy’s Seamanship is revealed