AIS and VTS – Is the pilots’ message finally getting through?

January 1st, 2004 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Features | No Comments »

As you are aware I have been following the developments of AIS closely in our magazine, not least because there are many promoters of AIS who have made no secret of the “ideal” that it will eventually become the platform for so called “Remote Pilotage” from VTS centres. This is despite increasing evidence that AIS is not the perfect tracking system originally anticipated. Our hard working Section Committee, in co-operation with EMPA and IMPA have possibly managed to kill off the contradictive term “remote pilotage” but other interests have sought to revive the concept under such headings as “Sea Traffic Controller” or “Enhanced Navigational Assistance”! Again, pilots attending the various seminars and conferences have generally managed to convince Brussels that VTS is incapable of being used to take over the “conduct” of vessels in port approaches and pilotage is being seen as an enhancement to safety in sensitive coastal waters. In particular EU officials are increasingly tending to support the concept of compulsory pilotage in waterways adjacent to Sights of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Such moves are obviously generating fierce opposition lobbying from ship owners, especially on the short sea trade sector. At this point it is relevant to mention that some pilots, who do not bother too much about what goes on outside their own district, question the cost of UKMPA membership (less than one tankfull of petrol per month!) and the answer is that much of it goes into representations to counter this anti pilot lobbying, which is often made by those in ignorance of what a pilot actually does. Such representations are not futile as some defeatists feel and it is frequently the case that when a pilot stands up and spells out how things actually are in the real world of commercial shipping they gradually win converts. Any committee member will tell you that when they get up in a room full of “suits” and state that yesterday they were actually on board a ship it will usually grab the attention of the attendees since pilots are often the only serving mariners present. Bearing in mind that these members are usually attending in their spare time the results in relation to expenditure are remarkable value! One highly influential person who has become a firm supporter of pilots and their skills is Michael Grey from Lloyds List who has written several articles supporting pilots and explaining their value. This brings me neatly back to the topic of VTS and AIS since this was recently the subject of an excellent article by Michael Grey in his Viewpoint column. Referring to the proponents of AIS he questions their enthusiasm in no uncertain terms. The following is an edited extract from his article which puts forward the common sense view. “Put in simple terms, it is the advent of AIS which has caused such a focus on getting the pilot off the bridge of a ship and into the air-conditioned ambience of the Vessel Traffic System tower. “Shore-based pilotage” it is termed, although (in that the process is divided between ship and VTS) it is, strictly speaking, neither shore based, nor pilotage. But if every ship on the VTS screen is going to be pleasingly identifiable to the “controller” watching it, that is a major breakthrough. That, at least in theory, would enable the person in the tower to rap out “Ship A – hard a starboard and slow ahead”, with a confidence that has been hitherto impossible. In the old days, our controller might have been speaking with such authority to a lump of floating debris bobbing in the tide, or to the fairway buoy. Thus, so this argument develops, pilotage can be centralised into the VTS tower and a lot of bolshie pilots and expensive pilot boats, not to mention a helicopter or two, can be paid off. Do these enthusiasts really understand what a pilot actually does, both in terms of the local knowledge that he brings with him, and the ship handling expertise which is only really vouchsafed to people who drive ferries and regular traders? How is marine safety being enhanced, when an exhausted shipmaster, who has spent the previous umpteen hours glued to a radar, when he was not thinking about all the paperwork he has neglected, finds he is required to undertake his own pilotage, helped by a remote (if friendly) voice over the VHF, who has prefaced any remarks with a clause politely declining any liability for advice given? How can anyone, other than a pilot on the spot, realise that the man at the wheel barely knows the difference between port and starboard, and the third mate, speaking no language known to mankind, nods vigorously when he means “no”? In an era of massive liabilities and total intolerance of any form of error, are we really ready for an “advance” which is so far a step backwards that it represents a major threat to marine safety? Forget about pilots’ jobs, or a new career of “sea traffic controller”. Professional mariners should unite and reject something which is fundamentally so potentially dangerous”. Reinforcing those arguments, a recent article in the BIMCO magazine also questioned the rush to embrace the utopian dream of VTS control of shipping via the platform of AIS. The following extract again serves to support the pilots’ arguments: “It might be a good idea in theory, but to both pilots and to hard pressed shipmasters who are not as over the moon at undertaking their own pilotage and ship handling as some might suggest, there remain plenty of unanswered questions. Once again it is a case of equipment manufacturers running the agenda, persuading owners that they have the answers to questions that are actually beyond technical problems. In the case of a fine day, in a simple pilotage with a small amount of traffic and a Master very confident in his own ship handling abilities and a competent bridge team, shore-based pilotage might possibly work. But with the same ship, on a filthy night with poor visibility and a man short on the bridge, the Master might greatly welcome the proximity of a competent pilot on the bridge. The pilot, after all, is an expert in this particular port and unlike a shipmaster of a deep sea ship, who rarely manoeuvres his ship, ship handling is the pilot’s speciality. Pilots cost money, and owners wish it was rather less, but shipmasters are exceedingly put upon, with practically every week bringing some new extension to their manifold duties. The use of a competent pilot does not mean that the Master can forget his own role, rather that he is enabled to operate with a slightly reduced burden. The absence of a pilot, with a large ship swinging off a quay, with tugs in attendance and unpredictable tidal effects, can be the preliminary to an expensive mistake, with plates damaged and quay squashed. Sure, pilots make mistakes, too, but they will usually make them less frequently. There is a certain air of the “One Man Bridge Operation” syndrome about the concept of shore-based pilotage. The equipment manufacturers say it is OK, so it must be. It is worth remembering that equipment manufacturers speak with forked tongues, driven by the need to sell their equipment. It is also well worth asking the port management proposing this interesting new facility of shore based pilotage, whether the port will be carrying the entire liability for any accident that may occur in pilotage waters.” These excellent articles are both based on professional awareness and sound common sense. Your elected representatives at the UKMPA are making such arguments on our behalf at every opportunity, so next time you wonder where your subscription goes you should remember these articles.

JCB