["The Loss of the Koombana" (Letter to the Editor), The West Australian, Friday 12 July 1912, page 9]
The Loss of the Koombana.
To the Editor.
Sir,--I take it as a very great compliment, and one that I fully appreciate, that Captain C. H. Watson has thought it worthwhile to reply to my letter of the 4th ult. Captain Watson, from his training and also actual experience of the willy-willies of our North-West coast, is fully competent to give a reasonable view of what really took place, causing the loss of the s.s. Koombana. I purposely refrained from any remarks as to the course the Koombana took, excepting the one item from Port Hedland, that when last seen she was steaming right into the north-east gale, and from that I came to the safe conclusion as Captain Watson, that she really ran right into the centre of the cyclone, and being subject to the terrific force of the convulsions of Nature was destroyed. The real point, to my mind, was that it was an error of judgment on the part of the captain, in leaving Port Hedland, with a low barometer, and with all the indications of a storm before him. But there is also this to be considered. If Captain Allen had remained at anchor at Port Hedland and the Koombana had been driven ashore there and wrecked, the probabilities are that he would have lost his certificate, having acted against the Board of Trade regulations or instructions, which, I believe, require a captain under certain circumstances to make with all speed for the open sea. Professionally and theoretically, I believe poor Captain Allen acted rightly, in putting to sea when he did, but practically it was all wrong, and here comes in the folly of laying down hard and fast rules for navigators, and penalising them if they act upon their own judgment, if that judgment be contrary to rule, and does not succeed. The result in this case is that owing to circumstances over which he had no control, Captain Allen took the risk and lost his life, his certificate, as well as his ship, passengers, and crew. Personally, I do not approve of the system of, as it were, terrorising master mariners with the threat that if they lose their vessel, ipso facto, they also lose their certificate, and consequently with that, their means of livelihood. Such a terror is apt to warp the judgment of the most quick-witted and clear-minded of men. I am glad to see that Captain Watson agrees with me that the barometer requires to be kept under constant observation. Now there is a point I should like to emphasise, and that is in reference to the use of the mercurial in conjunction with the aneroid barometer. I consider these two barometers should be placed together, the one acting as a check on the other. I consider of the two the aneroid is the more useful as it will frequently indicate a change 24 hours before the mercurial, but owing to its delicate mechanism the aneroid is apt to get out of order, while as a matter of fact the mercurial, though slower, is more reliable, owing to its structure, and its chief utility is really in acting as a check against the aneroid. I am in accord with Captain Watson in his remarks about Mr. Wragge's forecasts. I think our Government would be acting wisely and in the interest of the shipping on our coast if Mr. Wragge was appointed to take charge of the Perth Obarvatory. I think this feeling is pretty general. Sometimes I have heard remarks disparaging Mr. Wragge's forecasts, but even supposing he is not always right, we must remember he is not infallible. All that he does is simply to deduce from certain premises probable consequences, in other words, forecasts from data obtained. That his forecasts have proved valuable in the past, I think no-one in truth can deny. We could therefore reasonably expect that his warnings in the future would he of service in saving life and property.
Yours, etc.
P. A. GUGERI
Guildford, July 5.
