The Pilot Online Edition » Editorial

Editorial January 2010

JCB — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:39:42 +0000

Welcome to 2010 and to this 300th issue of The PILOT. We are now well into the 21st century and it is interesting to look back to the 1880’s when the Association was formed. In those days it was the UKPA because there were no airline pilots and that gives an indication as to just how technology has advanced. We have international air travel, man has walked on the moon, we can instantly send messages to anywhere in the world and surf through billions of pages of information in the Internet. We can even walk in the beautiful countryside or sit in a restaurant and talk to no one in particular about nothing of consequence on our mobile phone, oblivious to our surroundings. But what about shipping? Well the ships are different and we now have radar and will shortly be navigating on electronic charts but has anything really changed? In the feature I have tried to unravel the mysteries of ECDIS and I must admit that the concept is potentially a great advance towards enhancing navigational safety but it can only happen with training. ECDIS will become compulsory from 2012 onwards but what are the shipping companies doing about training their officers? Very little because there is currently no formal training requirement. One expert has estimated that 500,000 officers will need to be trained during the next 8 years and no sign yet of a rush. I think that we have a major problem.

Also in this issue I have reviewed the latest Nautical Institute publications on mooring and anchoring. Reading through the pages and looking at the mooring equipment it occurred to me that any officer from the 1880’s turning up in the Tardis would have no problem in mooring or anchoring a modern ship, the equipment is unchanged. The only question that our officer would ask is “Where are the crew?”. Here we are in 2010 with regulations that permit flag states to set the safe manning level for a VLCC at a total of 10 men? I can see our hypothetical officer dashing back to the Tardis!

EDITORIAL OCTOBER 2009

JCB — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:08 +0000

EDITORIAL

As I predicted in the July issue, the operators of the Cosco Busan, Fleet Managment, have come to an agreement with the prosecutors to make an out of court settlement of a fine rather than face a court case and possible jail term.

The sum agreed of $10m still has to be approved by the judge in December but if, as seems likely, the fine is formally agreed then the settlement will enable Fleet Management to slip away quietly and avoid the glare of publicity that a court case would have generated. So, with the Master and officers of the Cosco Busan (rightly) immune from prosecution as a result of their co-operating with the NTSB investigation, the media and residents of California will be satisfied that justice has been done by putting John Cota behind bars as the criminal responsible for the oil spill.

Although I understand that there were other factors in this case that led John Cota to plead guilty to the pollution charge, was he really guilty of a criminal offence? Although I’m no lawyer, my understanding of criminality is that “the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty”. Based on this criteria, since there is no evidence to suggest that John Cota set sail that day with the deliberate intention of causing a pollution incident to kill an endangered species he isn’t a criminal and shouldn’t be in prison!

Although the media have now moved on, satisfied that the witch hunt has successfully found the guilty party, the Cosco Busan case has already encouraged other environmental legislators to commence criminal proceedings. In Norway the Captain and Third Officer of the vessel Full City are under house arrest charged with criminal gross negligence after the vessel’s anchor flukes broke in a storm and she set onto rocks causing 300 tonnes of bunkers to leak out. Questions over this case obviously need to be answered, but a criminal prosecution? A worrying trend indeed!

Editorial July 2009

JCB — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:50:16 +0000

From the outset it was evident that the media frenzy in America, following the Cosco Busan allision with the Bay Bridge in San Francisco, would ensure that the role of the pilot, John Cota, would be subjected to detailed scrutiny. What wasn’t anticipated was that criminal negligence charges would be brought against him to which he subsequently pleaded guilty in a plea bargaining agreement. The court’s decision to impose the maximum possible 10 month prison sentence on the pilot, has set an alarming precedent which has profound implications for all pilots worldwide. As criminal charges commence against a pilot in France, all pilotage organisations need to work together to decide how we can address this issue. As Australian pilot and IMPA vice president, Steve Pelecanos, aptly states:

“We need to send a strong message to industry that it is an inherent part of the human condition to make mistakes and pilots, like all humans, are capable of making mistakes. If, as an international maritime industry, we are to acknowledge that the criminalisation of pilots who make mistakes is acceptable, then we must be prepared to accept the potential detrimental impact this might have on international trade”.

Every day around the world, thousands of pilotage acts ensure that the world’s trade keeps moving with the minimum of delay. Many of these acts will be undertaken in challenging conditions at the limits of operational parameters. Pilots are expected to cope with such conditions but the considerable skills employed and stress endured go totally unremarked when the ship is berthed alongside and cargo operations commence! Although the Master and Officers of the Cosco Busan received immunity from prosecution by cooperating with the NTSB enquiry, the ship operators, Fleet Management are facing court proceedings later this year. They will no doubt argue that the pilot has admitted liability and walk away after paying a nominal fine. With the shipping industry’s opinion of pilots generally low, John Cota’s fate will inevitably fade rapidly from the headlines but I, for one, will be thinking of him and his family throughout his prison ordeal, especially when piloting in marginal conditions!

Editorial April 2009

JCB — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:29:46 +0000

This quarter’s feature focuses on four MAIB reports into Fog related incidents. Tragically, one of these resulted in the loss of three lives on board a tug which capsized whilst towing in fog. The relevance of all of these investigations to members is that all the vessels involved were being conducted by experienced pilots and all had begun as routine acts and even though fog provides additional challenges, all pilots should be sufficiently trained to cope with reduced visibility and lack of training for fog navigation was not identified as a factor in any of the investigations. Indeed one of the key reasons for any pilotage service is to provide well qualified, highly skilled, pilots to ensure the vessel arrives / departs on time regardless of the weather conditions but therein lies one of the key risks! With the arrival of a pilot on the bridge, the Master and his bridge team invariably relax and place their trust in the competence of the pilot. This is understandable because in pilotage waters the vessel is operating in an environment for which it was not designed and the both the Master and his bridge team are also in an unfamiliar environment for which they haven’t been trained. This places enormous responsibility on the pilot and he is grave danger of being left unsupported not just by the bridge team but also by all others involved in bringing ships in and out of port such as the Harbour Authority, VTS and tugs. It is here that the MAIB’s findings can be summed up in two words, “procedures” and “communication”! Pilots must include the bridge team in the Master / pilot exchange and monitoring of the passage and pilots should communicate any changes to passage plan to the Master and encourage him to discuss any concerns.

Finally, the major fog incident that will inevitably affect us all is the Cosco Busan. Although the NTSB has yet to publish its full report, a very worrying development is that the pilot has been charged with, and pleaded guilty to, causing pollution.

EDITORIAL JANUARY 2009

JCB — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:07:57 +0000

As I compile this issue the world is rightly hailing pilot Sullenberger of US Airlines a hero for his skill in landing his crippled airliner on the Hudson River. At the same time the maritime headlines detail the criminal conviction of Captain Chawla and Chief Officer Chetan from the VLCC Hebei Spirit. The Hebei Spirit was at anchor whilst a crane barge was being towed along the South Korean coast. When the tow parted the barge drifted down onto the Hebei Spirit and despite valiant attempts to avoid a collision by paying out the anchor cable, a collision occurred which caused Korea’s worst pollution incident and the immediate response was to arrest the Captain and crew. I am in no doubt that had the accident on the Hudson involved a ship rather than a plane, the pilot would have been arrested and the media focus would have been on trying to find someone to blame rather than seeking a story of heroism regarding the pilot who may have displayed equal skill levels to those of pilot Sullenberger.

In the maritime world there is no longer any such thing as an “accident” and the Cosco Busan accident has highlighted this since, despite having retired, the pilot. John Cota is still facing criminal prosecution. But is he really a criminal? Entering into a dense fog bank and having lost confidence in the radar, John Cota turned to the ship’s electronic chart whose operation was unfamiliar to him. A misinterpretation of the chart display resulted in the accident and subsequent pollution for which he is now being held liable.

It is highly probable that had John Cota had his own electronic chart and been trained in its use, this accident wouldn’t have happened and one outcome of his trial will probably be a recommendation that all US pilots carry a Portable Pilotage Unit (PPU).

This quarter’s feature on POADSS reveals how technology can support a pilot and the question is no longer, do pilots really need a PPU but how much longer can pilots continue to conduct passages based on hand written, non dynamic, plans?

EDITORIAL OCTOBER 2008

JCB — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:01:54 +0000

This month marks the 20th anniversary of the implementation of the 1987 Pilotage Act which transferred responsibility for UK pilotage from Trinity House to the ports. It seems strange that pilotage was singled out as an area where legislation was required, but the intense lobbying by the shipping and ports industries somehow convinced the Government that pilots were “strangulating trade” and unless this unruly body of individuals was regulated then the country would be brought to its knees!
Although all was not as rosy under Trinity House as some would like to reminisce, the TH pilots provided a high quality professional and very efficient service to the ports for (compared to lawyers and accountants) a very reasonable charge. Once the responsibility for pilotage was transferred to the ports, the delegation of power without accountability inevitably led to the erosion of safety parameters and this fundamental flaw of the 1987 Act was dramatically exposed by the Sea Empress disaster in 1996. The findings of the Sea Empress investigation led to a review of the Pilotage Act which in turn led to the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC).
So where are we now? Twenty years on, the flaws of the 1987 Act are still regularly being revealed by MAIB investigations and in 2005 the government announced a proposed new Marine Bill which would include pilotage and underpin the PMSC with legislation to provide accountability by ports to the Secretary of State. Although delayed, the Bill is still tabled for the future but the delay has resulted in the port and shipping industries intensifying their lobbying to water down the legislation. As I write this, the ship owners and charterers are lobbying to remove the requirement for a PEC holder to be the “bona fide” Master or Mate of the ship (see PEC abuse article) and the ports bodies are lobbying to prevent the PMSC and accountability elements of the Bill from being incorporated. “Voluntary self regulation” is all that is required they protest. Well, as the now proud owners of all the UK banks’ debts, we all know where that leads!

EDITORIAL JULY 2008

JCB — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:34:01 +0000

The 120^th UKMPA Conference was held in Harrogate in May and the excellent attendance by 49 delegates and pilots actually represents 10% of the total UKMPA membership. For those who didn’t attend this issue contains a brief resume of the proceedings and the notes from day 1 reveal the vast maritime spectrum that your elected representatives are involved in. On day two we were honoured to have Michael Grey from Lloyd’s List provide the opening speech and then to receive presentations from Stephen MEyer (Chief investigator MAIB) James Weeden (Head of Ports division DfT), Geoff Stokes ( Port Liaison Policy Leader, MCA) and Kevin Austen (ex HPL pilot & Solicitor, Barlow Lyde & Gilbert). A special bravery award should be granted to Andy Kirkham of the International Group of P&I clubs who took considerable flack from the floor over the P&I Clubs’ use of the term “pilot error”. The very positive outcome from this session was that delegates came away with a greater understanding of the work of the P&I Clubs and Andy agreed that the aims of the UKMPA and the P&I clubs were the same by acknowledging that high standards in pilotage reduce incidents and therefore claims. By the time you read this the full minutes should be available on the UKMPA website and I would urge all members to take the time to read them because no pilot can afford to remain ignorant of what is going on outside his district, regardless of how far removed the national and international issues in which the UKMPA are involved may seem. With respect to this, Liverpool pilot and Section Committee member, Dave Williamson, has written an excellent article on page 8 which eloquently analyses some of the key issues to emerge during the conference. The fundamental message is clear; pilots cannot afford to be complacent and Joe Wilson summed it up neatly at the close of the conference with the words “watch what you are doing”!

EDITORIAL APRIL 2008

JCB — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:22:36 +0000

The last year has seen several investigations into incidents involving pilots and one factor emerging is that frequently there has not been a clear communication between the Pilot and Master as to the intended passage / manoeuvre. In most cases the paperwork exchange has been correctly undertaken but the arrival of Voyage Data Recorders (VDR) means that conversations between the Master and pilot prior to an incident can be replayed and examined and these are revealing that frequently the exchange is limited to ticking boxes with little or no elaboration on detail. If the Master doesn’t ask for details and bridge team takes very little interest in the passage then the scene is set for an incident resulting from “single person error”. The increasing fitting of VDR’s means that pilots must adopt a professional attitude and, in addition to ticking boxes on forms, should explain to the Captain all relevant information for a passage and encourage dialogue. In turn the Captain has a duty to expand upon the information contained on the pilot card. When it comes to manoeuvring on or off a berth it must be clear who is undertaking the manoeuvre and even if the Master is handling the ship the pilot has a duty to fully apprise him of his local knowledge regarding tidal effects, other traffic movements etc and monitor the manoeuvre. Regardless of who is handling the ship both the master and pilot should be clear as to how the manoeuvre will be undertaken to ensure the safest outcome.

Following the Cosco Busan allision with the Bay Bridge in San Francisco the conduct of pilots is being examined in detail and a timely article by Rotterdam pilot, Margriet Torpstra, expands on this topic here and its content should be carefully noted by all pilots.

In addition to this article Margriet Torpstra has also produced two training DVD’s in association with the Dutch shipping group Vroon. To read the review click here.

EDITORIAL APRIL 2008

JCB — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:20:26 +0000

In addition to this article Margriet Torpstra has also produced two training DVD’s in association with the Dutch shipping group Vroon. To read the review click here.

EDITORIAL JANUARY 2008

JCB — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

The role of the pilot has never been easy to define but generally the Master pilot relationship results in a mutual understanding that works remarkably well considering the number of ship movements that are undertaken without incident throughout the world every day. Unfortunately a combination of circumstances inevitably combine which results in an incident in pilotage waters and of course the investigators have the benefit of hindsight to analyse in detail what went wrong and make “recommendations”. However, there is a fundamental difference between undertaking investigation to produce reports to provide “lessons learnt” in order to prevent others making a similar error and using the findings to apportion blame which could result in prosecutors using such fact finding reports in support of legal action. Regrettably there is an increasing tendency towards the latter in maritime investigations and whilst the system has worked extremely well for the air industry it is no longer working for the maritime industry.

In a recent “Viewpoint” column in Lloyd’s List, Michael Gray eloquently wrote about this development and quoted Dennis Bryant of Holland+Knight who has accurately summed up the difference in the following quote “When there is an aviation casualty, the search starts for the cause and how to prevent a recurrence, When there is a maritime casualty, the search often starts for someone to blame and possibly prosecute. “

Pilots are of course at the front line and the UKMPA are currently supporting two members whose authorisations are under threat following incidents. By seeking to identify a “culprit” in every maritime incident and possibly using MAIB reports to bring legal action against individuals there is a danger that those involved will increasingly refuse to co-operate in investigations. This is a serious problem that the MAIB needs to address as a matter of urgency.