Another item in this mag. mentioned that Humber ports was intending to get rid of 12 pilots.I find this rather ironic when the Humber did what it did and iradicated a whole service which was self-employed . Those of us who were self-employed tried in vain to point out to pilotage authorities that in times of downturn and the Tyne is suffering due to reduction in Nissan car traffic then ‘no ships means no pay’when your self employed(rather obvious I know)So the new port pilots on the Tyne are quite happy as they are working much less for same pay !!! Maybe my generation were lucky although having to work in Jeddah during the miner’s strike of 83’84 to pay the morgage wasn’t a pleasant experience.

S.S. William M Clarke: Cutter No4 on inspection day. c. 1937

Photo: Liverpool Pilots’ Archives

John Curry’s article on the retirement of Stuart Wood, Geoff Rafferty and John himself marks both a vintage year at Liverpool and nothing less than the end of an era in pilotage, quite possibly throughout the entire world.

Their retirement is the retirement of the last three pilots trained to the highest possible standards in a system of sea-keeping, station-keeping pilot-cutters without any assistance from shore-based launches.

Having left school aged sixteen in 1960 as John explains, he, Stuart and Geoff then served as cadets for about one year deep-sea before joining in 1961 a training-system which was then at its zenith (as it had been since its introduction in 1896) and which began a long process of decline in the following year, 1962. The key to the system was the maintenance of four pilot-cutters, three of which were permanently at sea, with one in dock on stand-by. The three at sea operated in a rotation comprised of one week keeping station at the Mersey Bar (16 miles out of Liverpool), one week keeping station off Point Lynas, Anglesey (a further 36 miles to the west) and one week on tender-duty, sailing daily from Liverpool Landing Stage to the two sea-stations in order to keep the stations properly supplied with pilots. The week on tender-duty (or on-the-run, as it was known colloquially) was served during the middle-week of the three-week rotation, the first and third weeks being served at the Bar and Point Lynas respectively.

The system originated in 1896 when the first four steam-driven pilot-cutters were introduced, replacing a fleet of twelve schooners. As the schooners had been manned on deck entirely by apprentices, the replaced apprentices became the deck-crew of each newly-commissioned steamer, regulated at ten apprentices per pilot-cutter. The system was maintained for the next sixty-six years, largely unchanged through two World Wars, although a fifth steamer was commissioned temporarily between 1915 and 1923. The original four steamers were themselves replaced over the years. By 1961 (when our heroes joined the system and found it ats peak) the fleet comprised one steamer dating from 1937 (a veteran of the Spithead Review of that year) and three diesel-electric pilot-cutters built in 1950, 1953 and 1958. All the cutters were built to the highest specifications, the last three having state-of-the-art gravity davits for the boat-work which formed the essential element of their existence. The cutters were commanded by licensed pilots as Senior Master and Second Master on permanent appointment. The Senior Apprentice (aged about 23) was Mate or Chief Officer of the cutter.

In 1962 the ss William M Clarke, Number 4 Cutter dating from 1937, was sold to the Humber and was replaced by two shore-based launches for tender-duty to the Bar station. The service of the Lynas station was maintained by overland transport. There was no longer a sea-keeping cutter on tender-duty.The oldest diesel-electric cutter (Sir Thomas Brocklebank of 1950) was withdrawn in 1974 upon the development of the modern shore-based station at Point Lynas and the later two (Edmund Gardner, Number 2 of 1953 and Arnet Robinson, Number 3 of 1958) survived in service until 1982 – when the Edmund Gardner became the prime exhibit at Merseyside Marime Museum.

John Curry, Stuart Wood and Geoff Rafferty quite possibly have honour of being the last three pilots anywhere in the world to have trained in such a system and to have served as licensed pilots in a major port while still in their early twenties. There remain of course several pilots in service today who experienced the training-system in its twenty-year decline after 1962,  but no others who had the benefit of the training-system at its peak. As a practical method of training pilots for a major port, it had no equal.

SALUTE TO THE FOUR-BOAT MEN

The last of the Four-Boat men.

The last of the men on the Run.

The red and white Flag, the pea-whistle and bag,

All cruising in Westering sun.

Who cruised through the Winter as well,

Through fog and through storm and through ice,

Who cursed and who swore bloody-hell,

Who served and who didn’t think twice.

For such was their chosen vocation.

Apprenticed in sea, ships and ropes.

In Pilotage. Keeping the Station,

In youth, aspiration and hopes:

For trade and for commerce and living,

For family matters and life.

Accepting the crude unforgiving,

To satisfy Nature and wife.

Each man bore the yoke: or he lost it.

In Pilotage, that is the way.

Professional practice would cost it,

No less than it costs it today.

Salute the Four-Boat men of Mersey,

Serving Liverpool all through her prime:

Apprenticed, in Flag-embossed jersey,

Then Licensed in service sublime.

In passing the yoke now to others,

Old men salute youngsters and then,

Acknowledging  youngsters as brothers,

Salute all the old Four-Boat men.

Barrie Youde

In the course of the many telephone conversations which I have with Pilots, it is often apparent that they are unsure as to exactly what cover they are paying for. I shall attempt here to give a brief and simple explanation.

The Pilot Protection Policy, currently insured with Royal & Sun Alliance, is unique in the British Insurance Market. The Wording is tailor made to your requirements and is there to provide the Pilot with Loss of Income should he be suspended as a result of a Piloting incident and to cover any Legal Costs which may be incurred in attempting to get his licence reinstated.

The final part of the Policy is in respect of Third Party Claims, which are currently limited to £1,000 in respect of payments, but there is always the concern that a test case may be brought which would involve Legal Costs way in excess of this relatively low amount.

It is often pointed out to me that the Premiums charged appear to be unfair to the Pilots who are not full-time and work out of the smaller Ports. Their issues have been taken into account by us having the two levels of Premium and Cover, the insurer’s did originally want just one charge for all Pilots, but we managed to agree with them that a split was fairer to the Membership.

The next Policy is the one with DAS, which is principally there to provide Legal Services in the event of a Pilot suffering an injury where someone else is to blame. This is not just restricted to incidents at work.

There are other Sections which apply to this Policy which include Legal Defence Costs, including for Criminal Prosecutions brought against you, Tax Investigation Costs and numerous Helplines for any Legal question which you may have, even though it may not be covered by the Policy.

Once again, this Policy Wording is tailor made to suit the U.K.M.P.A. Membership as it covers both employed and self-employed persons, this is unusual for a Commercial Legal Expenses Policy which is usually one or the other.

The two Policies mentioned are Compulsory to the Membership, but there is the Optional Personal Accident Cover. There are still a lot of the Members who do not take this Option, with the regular comment being that they already have sufficient cover. There is no limit to the amount of Personal Accident cover you can take in respect of Death, Loss of Limb, Loss of Eye and Permanent Total Disablement. I am continually told by Members that when they have looked for this insurance on their own, the Premiums they are charged are considerably higher than that being offered by Circle.

Another area where there is perhaps some confusion on this insurance is that once again it is just not restricted to accidents at work.

One final point on the Personal Accident insurance is that the Members do not have to take this insurance out on the 01^st January, it can be any other day of the year, all they have to do is contact me and I will give them a pro-rata Premium for the remainder of the insurance year.

I could go into more detail on the insurances, but the information is currently available on both our website and that of the U.K.M.P.A.

I wish to make one final point. Circle Insurance Services and Meridian both work on behalf of the Members of the U.K.M.P.A. We are there to provide you with a Professional Service and Assistance during what could be extremely stressful times. We know from day to day experience that insurance companies do not always appear to be the most helpful, we are on your side.

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Garamond; panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:647 0 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Garamond; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-language:EN-US; font-weight:bold;} p.MsoTitle, li.MsoTitle, div.MsoTitle {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Garamond; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-language:EN-US; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

Drew smith, Circle Insurance.

Blame and shame is really just a wasted opportunity

By pure coincidence, at the same time as Dave Williamson wrote his thought provoking article (Pilots under siege?) a letter appeared in Lloyd’s List  written by IMPA Vice President and head of standards and training at the Australian Marine Pilots Association (AMPA), Steve Pelecanos which serves to underline the issues currently being debated by the UKMPA

Cosco Busan Pilot error or pilot support system failure?                  Photo KCBS website

THE United States of America is looked up to by many nations of the world as the epitome of democratic maturity — a nation that embodies the zenith of human evolution. A nation founded on the great ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and the pursuit of happiness is, after all, where any human being should expect to live and thrive in an environment where fairness permeates all facets of life. This is the stuff of leadership; an aspiration for many.

In the maritime context also, the US has had a great and proud history and has provided the world with leaders such as Nathaniel Bowditch, Thomas Sumner, Matthew Maury and writers of the calibre of Herman Melville and Henry Dana. More recently, Dominic Calicchio won international renown for his investigative work following the sinking of the Marine Electric.

However, on the morning of November 7, 2007, the reputation and image of a great maritime nation collapsed when the world witnessed the knee-jerk response of a bureaucracy to the collision between the MV Cosco Busan and San Francisco’s Bay Bridge.

The process initiated on that morning seemed focused on finding, not the root cause of the accident, but rather, a scapegoat — an individual upon whom to pin the blame; a process that seemed more guided by the philosophy, “if we remove the individual, we remove the problem”, rather than a philosophy of “what lessons can we learn to prevent this type of accident reoccurring?”.

The substantial body of evidence derived from research into accident causation reveals, quite clearly, that individuals are seldom the cause of accidents.

Most organisational accidents occur because proper defences are not put in place to prevent them.

In this, the role of management and the regulator cannot be overlooked and when they fail in their duty, it is normally the hapless individual at the coalface who they’ll pursue to blame and hang out to dry. They will rarely point the finger at their own failure.

And so it was for the pilot on the bridge of the Cosco Busan. Compare what happened to him with what happened to the pilot on the Zim Mexico.

Both accidents occurred in the same country, but the responses could not have been more different. In the former case, the crew of the Cosco Busan were granted total immunity from prosecution to help build the case against the pilot; in the case of the Zim Mexico the pilot carried on working and the ship’s master was arrested. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?

In the case of the Cosco Busan, the press has made a meal of the pilot’s medical and pilotage history but has left those who need to be questioned off the hook. Is the press informing the public or protecting the bureaucracy?

Pilotage is a very old profession and the law of pilotage is well established. The pilot is engaged as an adviser to the master. When a pilot arrives on the bridge of the ship, the words “vessel to master’s orders on pilot’s advice” are entered into the ship’s log book. In other words, the master is still responsible for his ship and the presence of the pilot does not relieve him of that responsibility. In San Francisco, the Harbours and Navigation Code expressly reinforces this principle of pilotage law. So why then, was the ship’s crew granted immunity?

In very general terms, the relationship between the ship’s master and the pilot is based on a sharing of knowledge — the pilot has local knowledge of his port’s geography and regulations and the master has knowledge of his ship and its equipment.

From what we read, the event that immediately preceded the accident was a misinterpretation of the information given by the ship’s electronic charts. The pilot relied on the master’s knowledge of the ship’s equipment. Prima facie, it appears that the master provided the pilot with the wrong information and it was this information upon which the pilot made a decision.

But this leads to even more questions. If the master could not provide the pilot with accurate information about the ship’s equipment, had the shipowner ensured, as required by international convention, that the master was properly trained in the use of the equipment?

These questions have not been asked. Nor has anyone asked why, if the pilot’s medical history was of concern, did he still hold a licence? And what standard operating procedures did the Pilot Association have in place regarding pilotage of vessels in fog? Were these procedures robust enough to deal with the circumstances? What measures of oversight did the regulator employ to ensure the Pilot Association had an effective safety management system in place? What measures of oversight did the Pilot Association employ to ensure its pilots adhered to its safety management system?

The old profession of pilotage has been undergoing significant change in recent years. As in all highly operational environments, safety in pilotage is systems based and all of those involved in the regulation, management and execution of pilotage safety sharing a responsibility to ensure the systems are robust and have the rigour to withstand the highest scrutiny.

It is so easy, and so wrong, to blame an individual for an accident of this kind. A proper accident investigation needs to delve deeply to find the root cause. It is only when we understand the root cause of accidents and take measures to address them that we move forward in creating a safer society for the human race. This is something that should be clearly understood and practiced by great democracies.

The way the case of the Cosco Busan is being prosecuted is a throwback to yesteryear where all the benefits that could flow from a modern investigation have been sacrificed in a spirit of vengeance. Blame and shame might provide momentary satisfaction for those with a warped sense of justice but, at the end of the day, it is simply a wasted opportunity.

Captain S. Pelecanos

Brisbane pilot and President, Australian Marine Pilots’ Association (AMPA), vice President IMPA

Never before has the profession of the Maritime Pilot been subject to such trials and tribulations. Following on from the ‘criminalisation of seafarers’ we are now faced with the ‘criminalisation of Pilots’. In the USA a Pilot has suffered such incursions on his personal life, that the ‘Vultures’ who lay in wait, to pounce at an opportune moment, have all but removed his dignity. In Australia a Pilot who narrowly averted a collision with a yacht in a restricted channel has been stripped of his worldly wealth, trying to defend a case brought again him for causing stress and trauma to the crew of the yacht.

The emerging culture is one of ‘blame’. Whom can we ‘turn over’? Where does the ‘accountability’ lay? More importantly, who can be considered ‘liable’?

Following on from the Master of the vessel the next target in the ‘chicken coup’ is the Pilot (if aboard). If aboard then, any mishap is likely to be determined ‘Pilot error’. Many of the industry stakeholders show naivety in their definition of incidents that they attribute to ‘Pilot error’. They use terminology such as ‘Pilot assisted collisions’. In the dictionary assisted means to help and support, one assumes with a willingness! Stand up please the pilot who has willingly assisted in any collision or incident. The latest training aid video produced by the American Club P&I Insurance group, has the unfortunate title ’Stranger on the Bridge’, hardly an endearing choice of words. One incident report published by an investigatory body contained the phrase ‘the Master had an unhealthy trust in the Pilot’. A leading voice of the International Group of P&I Insurers told the UKMPA conference that if a Pilot is aboard during an incident then it falls into the category of ‘Pilot error’ and is recorded as such. His defining comments stated that, as a member of the ‘Bridge Team’ and as the vessel is under Pilotage, the Pilot is therefore responsible. An example offered demonstrated a vessel nearing its position on a berth moving astern at 0.4kts. The Pilot orders half ahead to bring the vessel to a stop; the order is conveyed by the Master to the Officer on the telegraph, the action is relayed back to the Master, who confirms the order with the Pilot. Unknowing to the Master and the Pilot the Officer has put the engines to half-astern. Before the engines of this large vessel could be stopped and put to ahead, the vessel grounded aft and damaged the main pipeline to the jetties. PILOT ERROR. Yes, we were equally horrified at this generalisation by a major stakeholder, who has since agreed to engage with the UKMPA and to the offer of a Pilot on the IG Pilotage Committee, which at the moment seems lacking in Pilotage knowledge.

Now I am no legal expert but let me give a personal opinion from the ‘coalface’ of how I view the liability matter. I for one am very glad that the UKMPA had the foresight to source and recommend to its members (in fact it is a condition of membership) an insurance for ‘Legal Protection Policy and the Authorisation and Professional Legal Protection Policy’. Our sincere thanks have to go to Simon Campbell (SecCom) for his doggedness in scrutinising the detail and securing the policies on our behalf. Many have scoffed at the need for this and consider that we are adequately covered under the contents of the Pilotage act or as an employee of the ports. This has since been both legally qualified and sadly for some of our colleagues qualified in the practical sense too. You had better believe that the employers will do all in their power to limit their own liability when the attorneys turn up in reception. Are they likely to be there standing alongside you voicing support and offering protection – dream on, that myth, has already been dispelled. Insurance cover now forms part of my passage planning, along with will my family be put at risk, do I risk my authorisation; now lets consider tides and tugs. Whilst the IG of Insurers and the ship owners it represents, seek to lay blame and apportion liability in the lap of Pilots, they will have to consider that in assuming the liability, Pilotage service companies will have a need to increase the Pilotage tariffs, to cover the added expense of insurance premiums, that Pilotage service companies will be forced to take out. Pardon me if I am being cynical but it would appear to me that the only winners in this case, are the insurance companies, who are in a ‘win win’ situation, earning from both the owners and now from the Pilotage service companies, whilst at the same time reducing their own risk.

Now let us put the ‘risk’ that any pilot may be prepared to take, into context. Here we are professional, properly qualified, trained and faced with a job that we know is ‘do-able’ with two tugs. With the ‘weighting’ of authorisation and livelihood, is it prudent to consider the third tug assistance. The owner will berate us for any damage caused and will seek to lay blame and apportion liability whilst at the same time will be aghast at your decision to call upon another tug for assistance. The point I am trying to make is that the current trend will inevitably lead to an increase in costs the ship-owner / charter incurs, as the Pilotage service provider raises tariffs to augment insurance cover and the amount of personal risk a Pilot may put into a job is reduced by extra provision.

At UKMPA conference in Harrogate, we received an address from the head of MAIB, Stephen Meyer. One of Mr Meyer’s contributions in the press in recent months covers the topic of complacency. You know what I mean – we have always done it that way, if it works why change? Mr Meyer has this to say about complacency:

Complacency must be addressed at every level:

• Professional pride and standards have an important part to play – professional bodies need to tackle this;

The UKMPA have been calling for professional standards for Pilots for quite some time, as you will have read in this journal on many an occasion. ETCS and NOS have been lodged with the Dft / MCA for a number of years but sit on the shelf. Recently there has been talk of Certificates of Competency (CoC) for Maritime Pilots and in my view, not before time. Ship Masters / Owners / Charterers have the right to expect the highest possible standards from Pilots and Pilots should aspire to those standards. (At least we agree on something with the IG P&I Ins) Don’t start shooting the messenger yet guys. I’m not saying that what we do is not good, in fact if you read the IG of P&I Insurers report by their ‘Pilotage Committee’, you will see that in the UK we rank exceptionally well compared to many countries of the world and some closer to home. The point is, whilst we sit back considering ourselves to be ‘good’ compared to the rest, in the back of my mind is Mr Meyers reference to ‘complacency’. Now you may have to start reading between the lines. Who is being complacent here? The Pilots? No, we have been calling for NOS for what seems like time in memorial and CoC would be a valuable addition. Could it be that some of the stakeholders consider it not in their interests to see the status of Pilots officially recognised by statutory qualification and certification. The same stakeholders, after our lead, compiled their own NOS and are now forging ahead towards implementation after maybe wakening up to the same complacency, whilst NOS for Pilots continues to be ignored. The same stakeholders would have to make a firm commitment towards training and the Continual Professional Development (CPD) of Pilots. Money, that is what it is going to cost and whilst some stakeholders invest admirably, many invest little and some nothing at all, of the Pilotage income. I am not sure what has changed principally since 1988 but the direction of the money paid by the ship owner in Pilotage dues seems to have been channelled away from investment in training and resources, particularly launches. The ship owner has a right to expect that a portion of his ‘dues’ are invested in the training of Pilots in whom he entrusts his very valuable asset.

Here’s my cynicism again, if the (what the hell) ports denounce or continue to ignore NOS for pilots and everything else that goes with it they can keep our ‘status’ as Pilots just where they want us. It is my personal opinion that the Dft / MCA and the meeting, of the Transport Select Committee should not permit this to happen. We read on an almost daily basis of the falling crew standards. The crew, that is the Bridge Team, which we are supposed to integrate with. From the demise of the European Seafarer in the 1980, we have seen the fall from grace of the Indian and Polish Officers. Not happy with the crew contract rates, the owners moved to the South China Seas and the Philippine National. Many of whom are trained to relatively high standards in the third world context. With a never ending hunger to cut costs and what easier way than on crew wages we have experienced, Indonesian, Chinese, Vietnamese. None of which can be described as traditional seafaring nations.

So now the crux. If the holding back of standards in Pilotage continues, we will not recruit the calibre of seafarer needed to fill the growing void. It is already happening in mainland Europe. Germany for example needs 400 pilots NOW. Keep the standards as low as possible and the ports will be able to ‘employ monkeys and pay them peanuts’. It opens the doors for a substandard Pilotage service in the United Kingdom, which will be destined to integrate with an already substandard Bridge Team. The standards in the shipping industry are dire.

Consider the latest study and admissions from the US Maritime Administration:

• “It used to be that there were too few jobs and too many people looking. This study shows that the tide has turned, and the situation is reversed.”
• The US Maritime Administration would “continue to find new and innovative ways to recruit, train and retain qualified US mariners”
• 89% tried to recruit mariners last year, but 71% had trouble
• 88% indicating retention issues affected their business operations.
• - several shipping companies have been unable to sail their full fleets or have been sailing with sub-standard crews because of the workforce crisis. He gave this as one reason behind the major uptick in marine casualties in recent years.

This state of affairs is worldwide. It is ever more important that the UK government does not permit the standards in Pilotage to be dampened down by operators who see more in the development of viable quay space as apartments than supporting national assets and the technical nautical services that ensure the safety of navigation and the protection of the environment of our rivers and estuaries.

The qualities of Pilots need to be enhanced to guaranty that they are able to meet the ‘modern day’ (I use that term loosely) needs of the vessels which visit our shores.

So what can pilots do? Embrace NOS and ETCS for Pilots, impress on your CHA’s that you consider these to be the minimum standards for Pilots. Raise the issue too at your next Port stakeholder meeting. You should be a part of the stakeholder meeting which are supposed to be convened under the PMSC criteria. Ask why your Port is not embracing NOS and ETCS. If you are a self-employed provider for Pilotage services, ask yourself why it is not part of your operating procedures. Further, for self-employed ports look towards ISPO, International Standards for Pilotage Organisations. ISPO is a safety management system, the criteria of which identifies, many of the safety management procedures contained in the provision of Pilotage Services. ISPO like NOS and ETCS was produced by the sub-committees of the European Maritime Pilots Association. This self-effacing ‘Trilogy’ of documents should be seen as the stepping-stones for the modern day needs of Pilotage. The power in these documents should not be underestimated, and that, is what I consider, the UKMPG and the BPA to be afraid of. The UKHMA are putting NOS in place for their Harbour Masters and quite rightly. So why do they not compliment the status of one qualification with the other? I leave you to form your own judgement on that.

It is my personal view that ISPO is a necessity for independent Pilotage Service providers and self-employed Pilots. You have a duty to compliment the onboard ISM Code for ships and the voluntary PMSC for Ports. Demonstration of safe operating procedures and the management of those procedures is essential. Not to be confused with an ISO standard (though not a lot needed to upgrade) it simply needs for providers to document the procedures that they are already practically involved with.

The final question; are the Pilots of the UK living in that world of complacency described by Stephen Meyer? Or, are they prepared to form the an allegiance with the IG of P&I Insurers and the Owners / Charterers? to ensure that the modern day demands of Pilotage are met head on in the UK. Such allegiance must persuade the Ports and the government agencies that they have a duty of care to the national public interest.

The MAIB repeatedly following a shipping accident investigations provides recommendations that to the greater extent appear to go unheeded. In 1996, they made bold statements regarding the expectations for training of Marine Pilots and the PMSC places ‘obligations’ on ports for the training of their pilots. The PMSC sadly, remains voluntary. It will be a missed opportunity for the Marine Navigation Bill not to be amended during the consultation process and for the PMSC not to be made a statutory obligation. An omission, if unchallenged, I fear the Dft will, in the future, regret. And what for the MCA, god bless ‘em. Underpaid, under staffed and quickly loosing the leadership, drive and will. MIN307 still awaits the proof in the pudding. Paragraph 2.3 provides best practice for the issue of PEC’s. Paragraph 2.2 again provides sound advice with A960 thrown in for good measure. Are these recommendations being adhered to, I fear not. Could cruising up and down a river on a pilot launch and an afternoon on a dredger qualify for the revalidation of a PEC? Could five days training qualify a candidate as a Pilot? but then he is restricted to daylight operations! Why does this wilful disregard go unchallenged? The recently published accident report on the Ursine tells its own story with respect to PEC abuse.

I find it unfathomable as to why these three government representative bodies do not have the political will and listen to the practitioners who see the obvious benefits in Examination, Training and Certification Standards. Please don’t get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for our government agencies, the workload of whom and level of resource, which probably don’t match. They must have a vision that looks to the long term and they must ensure that other stakeholders listen to recommendations and are compelled to face up to their obligations.

There is an obligation on the government agencies too and they all have to respond to the public interest and not just the economic interest of stakeholders. IMO Resolutions on Marpol, STCW, SOLAS, have all been ratified by the UK government, why not Resolution A960? They will have to stand up and be counted, at the next major disaster on our shores, because whilst they fail to take heed of their own recommendations of 1996 they will be held, in part, culpable.

Dave Williamson

UKMPA Section Committee

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

]]> http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2008/09/06/pilots-under-siege/feed/ 2 http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2008/06/29/letter-squat/ http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2008/06/29/letter-squat/#comments Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:31:29 +0000 JCB http://test.pilotmag.co.uk/?p=247 I am a retired Humber pilot and was interested to read the two articles in the January issue on Bridge Visibility and Squat. On Bridge Visibility I do understand the Southampton Pilots’ problem I was a member of the UKPA technical committee some years ago and was invited to write a chapter on Bridge design for inclusion in the Nautical Institute’s Pilotage and ship handling book (1990). In the first paragraph of my piece I made the point that the primary reason for having a bridge is so that a lookout can be kept. What a pity no one seems to have read it, or if they did what a pity they took no notice. My co writer LJ Harrison made the same point in his submission as it relates to off shore supply vessels. On the subject of squat I would offer the following thoughts, Dr Barrass and most of the other writers on the subject use towed tank models. This may well reveal some aspects of squat and verify Bernoulli’s equations but a towed model has no propeller and I (simple sailor boy that I am) think that the propeller draws water from not only the sides of the ship in way of the stern run in but also from underneath the  vessel and I think that drawing water from
under a ship which is in shallow water will tend to make the after draft increase a bit. The tank towed model does not usually have any ballast water, cargo etc either. When a vessel suddenly runs into shallows, the first

thing that usually happens is that the vessel drops by the head. I think that when that happens any water in slack ballast tank to say nothing of a tanker cargo with a reasonable ullage will tend to surge forward adding to the trim by the head effect and also I seem to dimly remember some ship stability which says something about the centre of floatation moving aft under these sort of conditions which would also add to the effect. However the fact that the forefoot may not touch bottom may be because the water cannot get away from under the bow fast enough in a very restricted dredged channel for example and because liquids
cannot be compressed it may be that the bow is riding a water cushion. The last vessel of which I was Master before joining the pilot service was fitted with a bulbous bow and even in very deep water (Norwegian fjords)
when bottom proximity was clearly not a factor my observations seemed to suggest that as soon as we had a reasonable bit of way on, the bow dropped about 18” or so. On a sea passage as stores and water and
bunkers were consumed from aft the effect was very noticeable at an arrival port and I think bulbous bows have a downward thrust when the vessel is loaded. For hundreds of years sailors told of experiencing huge waves yet no one believed them because the maths people said the equations proved it was not possible. Then when waves were measured and observed by satellite and radar it was found that they did indeed exist. WAS THERE AN APOLOGY FROM THE DOUBTERS? NO! And I do not think the good Doctor will be saying sorry to the Houston and other pilots either.Mike Barratt PS Just to make my point about the propeller taking water from under the vessel I can tell you that some time ago the regular line running to Grimsby built a ship called Dana Maxima so named because she was built to  JUST fit Grimsby Lock and the vessel always
sailed through the open lock when the river and dock were level. One day the vessel arrived a bit deeper than usual but still within limits. However, as she got to a position head and shoulders in the lock she squatted down and sat on the lock sill. At this juncture the assistant dock master threw his hat on the dock side and began to dance on it. The pilot ordered the main engines stopped, ran some headlines out and hove the vessel ahead, she having refloated when the engines stopped. The bystanders may have missed this stage of
the proceedings as they were enthralled by the dance of the demented dock master! Once the stern of the vessel was clear of the outer gates they were closed and the ship’s engines were restarted and the vessel duly proceeded to her berth. Associated British Ports now make the dock masters wear hard hats to discourage hat dancing as it is considered unseemly!

In light of the usual doom and gloom we encounter regularly as part of our job lot as a pilot I would like, on behalf of Belfast Pilots, to present an update on a good news story. It is our first anniversary of the changeover to self-employment on the first of December and I am glad to report it has been a huge success for all involved. One of the often quoted, but rarely achieved win-win situations, for all those concerned. The transition from employees to self-employment has been smooth and much hailed by port users and management alike. The new Pilot House has been transformed into a homely but efficient office come staging post. Our first acquisition, i.e. the plaque dedicated to the efforts of Dave Devey (Liverpool Pilots) and the T&G, is polished every day and serves to remind all of tougher times past and obstacles overcome. As Dave often quoted, there was indeed a radical change in the perception of us as a body within the port. We are now on first name terms with the senior management and meet regularly to update, chat and exchange ideas regarding shared problems we encounter. Our opinions are requested, from source, and we are able to represent ourselves in a professional and positive manner. We are considered a part of the port “family” and are even invited to the Harbour Christmas Ball as welcome friends. Unfortunately the Harbour Master has recently moved on to pursue further opportunities but we wish him well in his endeavours.This changed perception has led others within the organisation to realise we are a valuable asset. The Public Relations officer is now a valued friend and has utilised our broad pool of expertise for various publicity promotions for the port. Captain Billy Esler and I recently took one hundred, cross community, school children on a boat tour to highlight the good work being carried out within the Harbour.

Captain Billy Esler with the school group

We have now been asked to care for our first “career week” youngster to shed light on the marine world and highlight the various career prospects available in the Harbour and beyond. On our own behalf we have actively investigated this “new world” of possible opportunities. Approaches recently resulted in our conducting a three day seminar for senior international safety executives. This was our first foray into the field of education and training. Suffice to say those involved shone and the whole adventure was a huge success. We hope to follow up shortly with similar, and more frequent, events. After years of self depreciation it is now becoming evident that we have under estimated ourselves and with the dawning realisation of our worth comes pride and the confidence to approach new ventures without apprehension but with renewed assurance. This is now a successful and most importantly a “happy” Pilotage service. However we can also appreciate the difficulties some of our colleagues are undergoing elsewhere. We understand the frustration and despair felt by those in our profession currently undergoing hard times. We are in communication with some of those involved and are happy to advise and assist as required. We are not experts but we can empathise and sometimes even that means a lot. I cannot say that self-employment is the be-all and end-all of all Pilotage problems but I look around now and see how we were, and how we are now. We are proud of our current standing and will remain forever grateful to the UKMPA, the T&G and the newly-wed Dave Devey, whose wedding we were delighted to attend.

Best wishes to all.

Captain William Magee

Chairman Belfast Lough Pilotage Services Ltd.

May I congratulate Richard Williamson on his excellent article in the Pilot No 288 where he explains with admirable clarity the responsibilities of Trustees?

There can be no doubt that Trustees are playing an increasingly important role in our society, as Government succeeds in off loading much of its social functions to the charitable sector.

When one considers the onerous burdens and duties which these good people bear on our behalf, is it not time for society to look at the question of payment for Trustees? How can one expect the Trustees of organisations with multi million turnovers to carry this burden as unpaid volunteers ?

Surely, the time is overdue for Trustees to receive a realistic salary for their work?

Yours truly

Ray Eades

Retired Liverpool / Hlumber Pilot

It was with great interest I read John’s latest editorial in the January edition concerning the last ten years of pilotage in the UK and the predications for the future. However, there appears to be one major omission from this prognosis, namely the future of the Association itself. Perhaps the mists did not clear enough, or he was fearful of what he may have seen! I have also noted the various other articles in the last two magazines, the minutes and the reports form Conference. They all appear to highlight a general trend. In short, an apparent total lack of interest by the majority of the membership in relation to most issues and UKMPA affairs and an inferred apparent inability of the current executive to cope with the workload.

It is interesting to note that the only proposal currently on the table to address this issue appears to be a bit of tinkering round the edges by considering a full time ‘administrator’. It is my belief that the problem is now far more acute and perhaps it is time to fully reappraise what this Association wants and what it stands for. Much comment has been made recently of the poor attendance at Conference, lack of interest and the failure to acquire representation on Section Committee. One SC member has been charged with investigating the problem. What is sadly missing is any form of analysis of why this should be this case? I do not believe pilots generally are unaware of the major issues facing us in the UK or are unconcerned about their implications. What I do believe is they feel out of touch with the executive and in many cases feel uncomfortable with the role and affiliated organisations the Association has aligned itself to. As Conference is now deferred until next year perhaps a good place to start might be for members of SC to tour the Regions and Districts and talk to the members en-mass and then consider what has been said and what their aspirations are.

Perhaps in addition to the issue of a full time administrator perhaps we should also be analysing the following in association with this debate.

1. Should we retain affiliation to any trade union, and if so which one?

I have heard many comments expressing concern over the proposed merger with Amicus. Whilst it may have major benefits for the Union executive, is it going to assist us as pilots? I am also aware that there are many pilots who have always felt [especially in self employed ports] that our affiliation to a union of any form sends out the wrong signal to the ports associations. [See Brian Wilson’s T&TC report on page 2 of the last issue concerning PPE] Others, despite UKMPA membership have also retained membership of NUMAST and advocated a switch to this organisation that is more directly marine related. Finally, both EMPA and IMPA are non aligned organisations and because of their insistence in not becoming involved on a direct basis in any disputes, they appear to command far more respect. This manifests itself in an ability to communicate more freely and open with outside bodies that are less suspicious of their motives. Perhaps the UKMPA should do the same? Were it to be an organisation like IMPA it could represent pilots national aims and objectives but refrain from becoming directly involved in local issues either of a contractual or dispute nature. This would avoid Association funds being spent on dispute etc. and allow them to be concentrated on representation to protect pilots generic interests in this country. Those [either employed or self employed] who wish to have the protection of union membership could apply to one of their own choosing where their entitlements and benefits are clearly defined. It is interesting to note that nowhere in the UKMPA Rules are these benefits and entitlements clarified.

1. Do we need to retain an office in central London?

Whilst I accept the current facility is provided cost free by the T&G, is it effective? If the UKMPA was a non aligned organisation the T&G subscriptions [or any union element] could be redirected to employment of the desired administrator at a small HQ in a more central and less expensive location.

1. Does any union really understand the complex issues regarding pilotage?

We have had 4 major occasions regarding pilotage issues where we have sought assistance from the T&G.

1. • Graeme Hutchinson on the Clyde
   • The Humber dispute
   • Kristian Pedersen
   • Belfast

Only the latter has resulted in success and this apparently mainly due to the determination of the individuals involved, the assistance of other pilots and Barrie Youde. I am not aware who has met the cost of this assistance.

1. Why do people not wish to take up the posts on the various national committees?

Instead of constantly bemoaning this issue and berating the membership perhaps someone should be asking why this appears to be the case and what measures can be introduced to redress it.

Whilst I have my own opinions on many of these issues it is not the time or place to express them, but I do believe they should be debated. What is not mentioned in the reports from conference is that in addition to the SC members who stood down, so did some of the deputies, myself amongst them. Perhaps my reasons were shared by some of the others.

What cannot be denied is that over the last few years we have lost individuals who never questioned the sacrifice of their own free time and in this were supported by their colleagues. Past Chairmen Mike Leney, Norman McKinney and Les Cate, Numast President Peter Russell, EMPA president and PNPF Chairman Geoff Topp, John Burn – secretary, IMPA President Geoff Taylor and many SC and T&TC members who sacrificed huge amounts of their own free time in the protection of our profession and other pilots’ interests both nationally and internationally. Finally, it would be totally disingenuous not to mention John, who in addition to his duties at Conference, regularly produces such an excellent magazine that is read and scrutinised around the world for its excellent articles. WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE WITH THE SAME COMMITMENT TO REPLACE THEM AND THE MEMBERS TO ASSIST THEM IN DOING SO?

It has also recently been reported that we are to host the 2012 IMPA conference. Having known Geoff for many years I believe I understand his motives for this suggestion. Those in the know understand that most progress is made not at official meetings but over dinner and social events where barriers can be relaxed; if one needs convincing of this note the article concerning World Maritime Time [‘Pilot’ October 2006] and the guest list. If this event is to be a success if will require a huge commitment from the membership and possibly financial input. Like the Olympics themselves, it has the capacity to be a great success or a total disaster. Our inability at organising our own Conference in recent years should be born in mind. How interesting if we had to rely on a small band of retired pilots to ensure this event is a success.

So where are we now?

Coincidentally, ten years ago as John was assuming editorship of the ‘Pilot’ magazine we also embarked on the review of the 1987 Pilot Act following the SEA EMPRESS disaster. No one knew at that time what the final outcome would be but all pilots concerned tried in good faith to achieve a satisfactory outcome and look to the future. If you think the PMSC and GBP are poor, imagine the outcome without UKMPA pressure. There have also been various references recently from districts expressing concern over the suitability or quality of applicants for pilots’ positions. How interesting to note therefore that during this same period some pilots had a vision. They perceived a situation where at some time in the future the ready supply of suitable UK applicants would dry up and we would have to resort to utilising foreign nationals. To address this they proposed a UK pilotage qualification enabling young applicants to enter at an early age without lengthy sea service backed up by a comprehensive set of occupational standards. The debates were many over what level the qualification should equate to and the level of sea time. Furthermore, there were continuous claims at Conference that it was not necessary as there was a ‘significant pool of suitable persons at sea with the necessary qualification [class 1]’. How empty these assurances now seem! This all ran on to the rocks with the dispute on the Humber. For over two years we remained in the wilderness as the DfT were horrified pilots had taken industrial action; in their view jeopardising the safety of navigation. BPIT was superseded by PSSL with no pilotage involvement. During this time the ports stole our clothes and ran with the idea of a qualification on their own terms. It may now be too late to undue that damage.

A few weeks ago whilst on passage from Avonmouth to Cardiff I was in conversation with yet another SE Wales trainee pilot. [Ex Humber – current] He advised that there were now 11 nationalities serving on the Humber but only 48% had joined the T&G because the foreign nationals were not interested. It is interesting to note that he also advised five had transferred to London. It is the first stopping post. Like a cancer it will spread – pilot job on the Humber, transfer to another UK district, until like the Merchant Navy their will be few UK pilots left. There is one glimmer of hope. One of the greatest benefits of self employed pilot districts is their ability to select their working colleagues. Perhaps a few more will now have the courage to follow Belfast’s example and take control again of their own future. This aside perhaps the next big issue is – will we blacklist pilots from joining the UKMPA in existing districts who have previously been employed on the Humber and accepted into post?

So Gentlemen, like John I too have gazed into the crystal ball. I see a situation where employed ports will provoke more confrontation and endeavour to introduce additional foreign personal on personal contracts. A foundation degree and pilotage qualification will be introduced on others terms, possibly without even any element of sea time. We will gradually lose our influence nationally as Port Associations argue we are no longer representative of all pilots in the UK and are a union motivated and backed Association. Through lack of interest and failure to participate we will lose the respect of our international colleagues. There will be no changes to the 1987 Pilotage Act to our benefit. The PMSC may become mandatory, but only if we keep pushing the arguments. There will be another major disaster possibly AIS or e-navigation assisted. Working hours will continue to cause division in the Association. This appears to be an employed/self employed divide. Some employed pilots are unhappy with their hours and roster systems, the majority of self employed districts do not experience a problem. As other pension options arise, members may abandon the PNPF unless it can offer long term security and the port associations will endeavour to distance themselves from supporting it. Finally, I also see John as editor of the ‘Pilot’ magazine in ten years time, as there is unlikely to be anyone with his ability or prepared to make the same commitment.

I really do hope to be proved wrong. As so few persons attended conference and take up of the web site message board is minimal, perhaps a few more of the rank and file members may wish to become involved in this debate. I personally believe it is time for radical change if we are to be fit for the new challenges ahead and operate effectively as a national body.

Avald Wymark – Bristol 28.3.07

Dear Sir

Having read the article by Ed Neale in the October Pilot magazine concerning Ytronic Bluetooth AIS, I felt that the following would be of benefit to fellow pilots.

I am a Deep Sea Pilot working through George Hammond. For several months I have been conducting onboard trials using Y-tronic Bluetooth. My set up is as follows:

Y-Tronic Bluetooth AIS Adapter, IBM X40 Laptop, BlueSoleil Bluetooth Dongle, Navmaster Electronic Chart System with ARCS charts. The electronic chart system was supplied by PC Maritime of Plymouth. This package gives me a number of useful tools, such as: The automatic download of ship dimensions from AIS The use of AIS as a position source The ability to use a Bluetooth GPS as a secondary position input, in case the AIS input fails The ability to set up an alternate route which I can see onscreen alongside the primary route The automatic recording of voyage data for later replay The system works together excellently and is user friendly. It is possible to display targets in the side panel in list format in order of distance from own ship.

Additionally information can be selected to be displayed automatically alongside targets on the electronic chart. You can display as little or as much info as you want; for example, I have mine set just to display ships name and destination.

The software system can automatically display tidal vectors and heights. It also has the benefit of a built in Voyage Data Recorder so it is possible to replay Voyage Data at a later date including movement of AIS targets.

I have found on several occasions that there is a momentary loss of AIS position signal, perhaps due to interference to the Bluetooth transmissions.

To overcome this, I have a Globalsat Bluetooth GPS which I run as my secondary position system – Navmaster will transfer automatically from primary to secondary input if the primary interface fails. Although I have so far used Admiralty ARCS charts, Navmaster works with ENC (official vector) charts and I will shortly be testing the system with ENCs. I can certainly recommend this system to anyone intending to go electronic. PC Maritime have been extremely helpful in the initial setup and fine-tuning of the system.

PC Maritime can be contacted at marketing@pcmaritime.co.uk and www.pcmaritime.co.uk

Andrew Ward MNI