A DECIDEDLY UNSATISFACTORY INQUIRY.

Sunday Times, 19 May, 1912

WRECK OF THE KOOMBANA

A Decidedly Unsatisfactory Inquiry

Port Hedland Journalist's Important Statement - 

A Last Interview with Captain Allen -

The Koombana Had an Ugly List to Port -

And Her Propeller Was at Times Out of the Water

When She Left Port Hedland

It cannot be said that the inquiry

into the loss of the steamer Koom-

bana was satisfactory to the public.

It was certainly satisfactory to the

Adelaide Steamship Company, which,

by the finding, escapes any compen-

satory liability to the widows and or-

phans and other dependents of the

150 victims who went down in the

vessel; but that isn't what we mean.

In the first place, the evidence was

all one-sided. No attempt whatever

was made to produce independent

expert evidence as to the stability of

the steamer, and by that we mean, her

ability to live in a cyclone, and not her

constructional strength. Mr. M'Donald,

who supervised her building at Glasgow, 

was asked with regard to her

stability, and he replied--"She was a

magnificent vessel, strongly built."

But that was not the import of the

question, which should have been as

to her resistance to a great storm.

A steamer may be a "magnificent vessel" 

in ordinary ocean conditions, but

what we want to know is, was she

fit to face extraordinary conditions?

In the case of the Koombana, the

answer is that she went down the

first time she met extraordinary 

conditions, and took her living freight

with her. There was no evidence to

show that she had ever been in a

cyclone before, but there is the 

appalling fact that she did not survive

the first big storm she encountered,

duced at the inquiry. One ex-sea-

faring man, on looking at the model,

said she was a conventional design of

modern marine architecture, but 

admitted that if she got into holts with

a cyclone she might be heeled over by

the gale, and if a sea came along before 

she could right herself she might

turn turtle and go to the bottom. On

points like this the inquiry was silent.

Certain witnesses said she could not

capsize, but they were not subjected

to expert cross-examination. It

should be noted, however, that many

of the witnesses are in the employ of 

the Adelaide and other coastal 

steamship companies. What we should 

have liked to hear was the evidence of 

a dozen or  more observant persons who 

had  travelled in the Koombana and who 

knew more about her than theoretical 

salts.

The last comment might have been drawn from the number of passengers and crew called as witnesses to the Inquiry into the loss of TSS Waratah, 1909. 

There are many other points which

should have been elucidated, such as

the statement that the propeller was

only submerged six or eight inches,

which would be really no submergement

to a tossing or heavy sea, because for

a great portion of the time the propeller 

would necessarily be yards out of the 

water. We have indicated a few of the 

defects in this unsatisfactory inqulry, 

and in our opinion the Federal 

Government should hold an inquiry 

on its own account.

BROOME, Saturday.

Mr. Barker, editor and proprietor of

the "Port Hedland Advocate," who

yesterday read the finding of the

Koombana Inquiry Board for the first

time, says that the statement that the

steamer when she left Port Hedland

was drawing 19ft. aft is not in 

accordance with what the Harbormaster 

told him and said he was prepared to 

adhere to when the vessel was reported

missing. The Harbormaster's assertion

was that she was drawing 11ft. forward 

and 16ft. aft.

For the record I believe these latter figures are accurate and tally with Koombana carrying a total weight of 1,671 tons minus ballast water 871 tons = 800 tons when she departed Port Hedland. Ballast tanks filled at sea. 

As to the statement that there was

no particular evidence of bad weather,

Mr. Barker says that for some hours

before the Koombana sailed from Port

Hedland the people were battening

down, preparing for the gale. Further, 

that 40 pearling luggers had run

into the creek from outside for shelter;

and that many divers had reported an

almost infallible sign of a blow--

that is, a heavy ground swell in 

various parts of the ocean bed where they

had been working. Also other evidence

and an erratic barometer made it patent 

that a big disturbance was on hand.

Furthermore, Captain Allen, when

questioned by Mr. Barker as to 

whether he was going to put out, 

said he did not know. "I don't like the glass,"

was Captain Allen's remark, "and another 

24 hours here will not matter."

His decision to put out was only 

announced subsequent to a conversation

which took place on the Koombana

between Captain Allen and Captain

Upjohn of the Bullarra.

Captain Allen was new to the Koombana and run (barely > 6 months) and Captain Harry Upjohn of the Bullarra, a number of years on the Nor'-West coast. One imagines that Captain Upjohn applied a certain amount of pressure to depart. Schedule pressure dominated decision-making? Also Captain Upjohn made a challenge of sorts asserting that Koombana was a better boat than his, the ageing Bullarra.

Upon deciding to go out Captain Allen 

asked the Harbormaster to have

certain luggers that were obstructing

the channel out of Port Hedland 

Harbor removed, and when one still 

remained said he would not go out 

unless it was removed. 

He was palpably uneasy and disinclined to go.

It does not get more disturbing than this observation! Why insist that all the luggers be removed from the channel? In such light condition Koombana would have been difficult to control and collision a potential consequence. Captain Allen would rather have waited another 24 hours, a window of opportunity which would still have allowed Koombana to clear the bar, but should the cyclone have hit Port Hedland, he would have been responsible for any damage to the Koombana - the policy being to confront storms at sea - lives 'disposable'.

"My passengers think they will get

to Broome to-morrow (Thursday)," he

remarked; "but they will be lucky if

they get there by Saturday. I am 

going to put right out to sea, and as I

might bump the bar going out I will

leave my ballast tanks until I get 

outside and fill them out there."

As the Koombana went out a choppy

sea was rolling through the harbor 

entrance. Mr. Barker watched the vessel 

from his house on the foreshore,

and she had an ugly list to port. She

was rolling heavily, her propeller at

times being out of the water.

For anyone with more than a passing interest in the disaster, this period report makes for sobering reading. One can only imagine how those residents of Port Hedland with friends and family on board Koombana must have felt knowing what they did and having to accept the whitewash Inquiry outcome, arrogantly dismissing any form of culpability on the part of the Adelaide Steamship Company.

It goes without saying that a heavily rolling Koombana with ugly list to port, battling in a choppy sea and pitching such that her propeller was at times out of the water, would have been a very poor candidate for safe and efficient filling of ballast tanks. We know that an attempt was made due to the length of time (2 hours) Koombana rolled heavily and pitched in view of the Bullarra crew. But to what degree this endeavour was successful will never be known beyond my own speculation that it could not have been entirely successfully achieved. 

It was only a matter of time, skirting the outer margin of the cyclone that the inherently top heavy steamer in significantly light condition was going to falter and roll over as predicted. 

Captain Allen's fear was realised.

courtesy Trove.