RICHARD ERNEST ARUNDEL.

Richard Ernest Arundel, surveyor to Lloyd's Register, had some interesting thoughts on what became of Koombana.

"I have come to the conclusion that, after leaving Port Hedland, making for Bedout, he (the captain) met the wind northerly so strong that it prevented him from getting to the north to go round Bedout; then finding it impossible to heave to on his port tack, which is the proper tack in a semi-circle on account of Bedout and Shoals under his lee, he must have adopted one of two courses; either to heave to on the starboard tack or attempt to run across to the open water to the westward in the face of the disturbance. In my opinion the disturbance was making almost direct into the coast."

".... in my opinion the disturbance was travelling very slowly."

"Your opinion is that the disturbance came down in a S.S.E. direction?"

"Yes, and that the "Koombana" before she reached Bedout, experiencing a wind, direction north & east, was obliged to heave to on the starboard tack on westward and in running west would get into the centre of the cyclone. My theory is that the heavy seas caused by the cyclone completely overwhelmed the vessel. The finding of wreckage to the westward confirms my opinion that she ran out to the westward."

I suspect that many present day searches followed this advice, to no avail.

I completely agree that the wind would have shifted from N.E. at the entrance to Port Hedland through North as referenced, approaching Bedout Island, confirming that the cyclone was moving 'almost direct into the coast' - vicinity of Balla Balla, 100 miles from Bedout. 

By the admission of S.R.P. Stevens, acting divisional officer of the Commonwealth Weather Bureau during the time of the disaster, the cyclone had a diameter of 90 miles. This implies that the fringe of the cyclone did not impact Bedout and the winds would have shifted through N and N.W. from N.E. as Koombana rounded the northern aspect of the island. 

Given the diameter as claimed, I don't agree that Koombana would not have been able to get to the north of the island. There were no hurricane conditions in this vicinity and furthermore, Koombana was an extremely powerful steamer for her size (3,000 ihp).

Mr. Arundel failed to explain how the bulk of wreckage was discovered to the north of Bedout if Koombana had been driven to the west.....  

The discovery of the wreck will prove this point one way or the other, definitively. 

One last and crucial point made was that the cyclone approached Balla Balla from the N.N.W. (heading S.S.E.). Given this simple and elegant confirmation of the path of the cyclone (further confirmed by the Moira account) the fringe could not possibly have impacted Bedout Island, 20 March!!! 

This simple fact was further confirmed by a cattleman on board SS Bullarra who commented that at noon, 20 March, he could see the cyclonic system to the west in the form of a dark, inky cloud formation (not north or northeast) off Bullarra's starboard bow - the steamer heading southwestward. 

State Records Office, Western Australia, series 2357; cons 066

State Records Office, Western Australia; series 2357; cons 066

courtesy State Records Office, Western Australia; series 2357; cons 066

courtesy Google Earth

Mr. Arundel made a highly enlightening comment:

"I have formed the opinion that she was a tender vessel when light but perfectly seaworthy."

What does this mean?

A tender vessel is a top heavy one and in Mr. Arundel's opinion this was the case when Koombana was in light condition; in other words the condition when Koombana carried minimal dead weight cargo in her lower holds which was precisely Koombana's status when she departed Hedland for the last time. 

'Perfectly seaworthy' might be a leap too far in this context. 

The final word on this sensitive subject is encapsulated in Mr. Arundel's final statements (document extract below):

"There is a popular fallacy that a ship having her top hampered is unsafe. If you have great weight in the bottom of a ship that gives stiffness and if you have not that great weight there is what is called tenderness. You do not think that a ship with top hampered, properly stowed, it would interfere with her stability at all?"

"No, the question in every case is a proper distribution of weight."

And there you have it. 

Koombana in light condition with a mere 260 tons of cargo forward in the ship - NOT aft and therefore not 'properly distributed' - was far from having adequate 'stiffness'; made worse by difficulties filling ballast tanks at sea, 20 March. 

There had been a scare, February 1910, when Koombana heeled over to a dangerous degree (45 degrees) and took too long to recover. She was carrying rails in her holds at the time and Captain Rees held onto them for no other reason than to give the ship extra dead weight lowest down in order to help stabilise her. 

The incident strongly suggested that Koombana should have been furnished with additional, permanent ballasting in the form of cement; lead concentrates; pig iron or some such countermeasure to offset the top hampering referred to....

courtesy State Records Office, Western Australia; series 2357, cons 066