A second meeting was held in the afternoon and UKMPA Chairman, Joe Wilson, was joined by Don for a one to one meeting with the Ian Timpson. This constructive meeting, again relevant to the DMNB, brought the DfT up to date with the appalling lack of progress over the last 10 years in properly utilising the National Occupation Standards (NOS) and progressing towards the desired national Pilotage Competence Certificate which was supposed to have come into being on 1st January 2010.  Joe and Don provided Ian with anecdotal evidence from members that a Class 1 Certificate of Competency combined with a Pilotage Authorisation is considered to be broadly equivalent to a Master’s degree and emphasised that a pilot’s qualification should therefore be at least equivalent to that standard. It was a pleasure to be able to advise the Dft that last month our Training and Technical committee had completed a review of the NOS. The new team at Port Skills and Safety (PSS) are keen to progress the matter (as we have heard more than once before over the years) but as a result of this meeting with Ian Timpson, the UKMPA should be meeting with PSS soon to determine the specific strategy to be adopted in order to finally bring this outstanding, post Sea Empress, goal to fruition.

Having been offered a stand at this year’s SeaWork Exhibition, held at Southampton on the 16th – 18th June, the UKMPA were well represented with chairman Joe Wilson, Jim Richie, Matt Winter, Kevin Constable, Mike Robarts. Manning the UKMPA stand. Other pilots visited the stand and greatly assisted in keeping the bar afloat!

L – R Martin Phipps, Matt Winter, Kevin constable & Mike Robarts

There was a full programme for the 3-day event which included the Annual General Meeting of the UK Harbour Masters’ Association, together totalling some 500 delegates. Of interest to pilots is that OMC won the civil engineering award for their “In Transit Real Time Dynamic Under Keel Clearance System.

This annual event is rapidly gaining international recognition and despite the recession attendance was well up on last year.

Following the HA’s taking over rrsponsibility for aothorising pilots following the 1987 Pilotage Act, many districts retained the authorisation structure and wording from the Trinity House authorisations. In some areas this included a clause stating that the authorisation limits could be overruled if a pilot of the appropriate grade wasn’t available. This meant that if a pilot boarded, say a Class 4 vessel and discovered that, as a result of its draft, the vessel was in fact a Class 3 vessel then his authorisation would cover him.  Following a recent case whereby a pilot, finding himself in such a position, refused to pilot the vessel, the UKMPA has sought a legal opinion on this historical anomaly and the following are extracts from the response:

There has never been a test-case on the point, but it would be very difficult to defend any pilot who willingly undertakes pilotage beyond the limits of his authorisation.

The leading relevant case is the Sea-Empress, where of course there was compliance with the regulated limits, but the rationale of the observation that the highest possible standards need to be observed was that the Milford Haven rules were themselves inadequate at the time.

….A pilot who undertakes the pilotage of a ship the size of which is beyond the limits of his authorisation is not only not authorised for that ship (and is therefore acting unlawfully) : but , in relation to that ship , is not truly authorised at all. acting unlawfully) : but , in relation to that ship , is not truly authorised at all.

It follows, therefore, that the statutory protection provided by Section 22 of the Pilotage Act (the £1,000 limit) would not apply in such a case; because the protection  benefits only an “authorised pilot”.

In consequence, a pilot who pilots a ship whose size is greater than the regulated limits of his authorisation forfeits the statutory protection and exposes himself to liability for unlimited (and probably enormous) civil damages.

The message therefore is perfectly clear and with modern communications there is no excuse for the draft to be incorrectly declared prior to pilot boarding especially since such errors are inevirably caused by laziness on behalf of the agent to check with the Captain prior to making the pilot booking. Let him take the blame!!

JCB

This year the conference was a one day event held on board the HQS Wellington and was attended by 39 pilots from 15 districts.

Inesrt pic. Caption : HQ Wellington    Photo: www.copyright-free-photos.org.uk

Chairman’s Report

Joe Wilson referred to the Marine Bill consultation and expressed concern that the DfT had classified the 118 pilot responses as “campaign responses” suggesting that they hadn’t been seriously considered. The major concern of the UKMPA had been the wording that proposed issuing PEC’s to “any person”. However, at a constructive meeting with the DfT last year,  they had stated that it had never been their intention to permit granting a PEC to anybody but the UKMPA would be checking the wording of the Bill carefully if and when it was ever revived.

National Occupational Standards and a pilotage qualification were still a major frustration and the UKMPA have been keeping the pressure on the revived Port Skills and Safety to try to move the process forward. The MCA are seemingly paralysed and show a lack of comprehension over how simple instigating a pilot qualification could be within the PMSC. Because of the importance of this issue a sub committee has been established which will report to Section Committee rather than the T&TC. However, the TTC will be undertaking a survey of districts with respect to their Continuous Professional Development processes.

Clyde

In 2008 Clyde pilots had been in dispute with Peel Holdings. A Perth UKMPA member pilot had applied to train on the Clyde during the dispute and SC took the decision to expel him from the UKMPA. The individual concerned took the UKMPA to an employment tribunal where UNITE provided representation for the UKMPA. The case was dropped by the applicant just prior to the hearing but the process revealed that there is no expulsion clause in the UKMPA rules, hence the rule change agreed this conference.

The situation on the Clyde was on-going and the UKMPA are continuing to monitor Clydeport’s pilotage policies.

Insurances

Concerns had been expressed that employed pilots were subsidising the self employed pilots with their premiums. This myth needed to be expelled because in reality the insurances were currently being required by more employed pilots than self employed pilots. Indeed, the underwriters have confirmed that as a result of employment legislation, the policy is more relevant to employed pilots.

As a result of a query from a district concerning the situation whereby a pilot may find himself on a vessel for which he is not authorised to pilot, advice has been received which is detailed at the end of this article.

Cosco Busan

The full NTSB investigation has now been released and the key findings were:

• The pilots degraded cognitive performance due to his medication
• Absence of a comprehensive pre-departure Master / pilot exchange and effective communication between the pilot and Master
• The master’s ineffective oversight of the pilot’s performance and the vessel’s progress.

These findings will inevitably impact on pilotage operations over here. SC have discussed the use of drugs and pilots are warned that pilots must declare their use of any prescription drugs and our insurance cover WILL be deemed void through the misuse of any drugs and alcohol, including the failure to disclose such use if proven.

The amalgamation between T&G and AMICUS into UNITE is on-going and it has been confirmed the previous “Memorandum of Understanding” drawn up between the UKMPA and the T&G is valid within the UNITE constitution

PNPF

See separate article on page.

FINANCIAL REPORT: John Pretswell (Forth)

Membership which currently stood at 493 from 45 districts. There had been a net loss of 9 members since 2008, mainly due to retirements. The accounts were healthy, and so the subscription rate would remain unchanged.

INSURANCES: Simon Campbell (Forth)

Three members had resigned from the UKMPA over the compulsory insurance requirement. Simon found this incomprehensible because the premiums areextremely competitive. Simon had given a presentation on our insurances to the EMPA congress which had followed one given by French pilot, Francois Laffoucriere, on the criminalisation of pilots. Francois had concluded his presentation with the warning that no pilot could afford to be without insurance cover in these litigious times.

Simon detailed the three policies to delegates {legal defence, DAS and personal accident (optional)} and provided examples where pilots had made successful claims on each. The most important policy is the legal defence provided by Royal Sun Alliance which is unique, having been professionally tailored to the needs of members. The wording of the policy is reviewed every year to ensure that the cover is kept up to date. The UKMPA cover is far better than any other available in Europe and many EMPA delegates had requested the details from Simon. Copies of the EMPA presentation are available to members on request.

MCA / DfT Peter Wylie (Tees)

Peter explained that all work with the MCA & DfT on National Occupational Standards (NOS) and the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) had gone frustratingly quiet with no progress having been made during the last 3 years.

The MCA have decided to withdraw any involvement in NOS for pilots and leave the matter in the hands of Port Skills & Safety (PSS) which is wholly owned by the British Ports Association. The UKMPA had managed to get a seat on the PSS working group but unfortunately, there was a general ignorance regarding pilots and their skills within the PSS panel since they were still considering that a “foundation” degree would be a suitable entry level qualification. The saga continues!

EMPA Dave Williamson (Liverpool)

Dave provided an overview of the latest EU Maritime Policies. One important reference to pilots was a Port State document which referred to pilotage services being of “General Public Interest”. An important factor with respect to the competition agenda.

Following rejection of the Ports Directives 1 & 2 attempts were being made to introduce PD3 but so far the MEP’s and EMPA were managing to stall the plans. A new document “Maritime Space Without Barriers” was promoting streamlining short sea shipping by extending PEC usage and “shore based pilotage” to remove the “bottlenecks” created by the need for vessels to slow down to pick up a pilot! Their definition of “short sea shipping” includes 180m containerships etc!

EMPA review and respond to all relevant documents and so far their influence was effective in keeping the issues in check.

Dave detailed the EMPA structure explaining that it was important that all UKMPA members were aware of the importance of EMPA.

“International Standards for Pilotage Organisations” had been introduced and self employed pilots in particular should consider becoming accredited to this. The EMPA congress presentations are available to members from Dave on request.

IMPA: Don Cockrill (London)

Don had attended the IMPA Congress in Bangkok and had been elected as a “Technical Advisor” to the executive. TA’s attended the same meetings with the Executive but didn’t get involved in financial issues so the UK has a member involved in the decision making process again. The main issue at present was a re-write of the pilot ladder recommendations which was progressing well through the IMO. The next IMPA congress would be in Brisbane in November 2010 and any UKMPA member can attend..

TECHNICAL & TRAINING: Brian Wilson, (Belfast)

Brian paid tribute to Gareth Rees who had been Chairman of the T&T for four years The MARNIS project was now complete and Nigel Allen was congratulated on the work & dedication that he had shown as UKMPA representative on this important project.

AZIPILOT project. This project was looking at all aspects of pod propulsion and Gareth Rees is representing the UKMPA

NAV55: See page 7.

MARITIME RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:  Matt Easton (Liverpool)

As part of offering a professional service it is becoming increasingly important that pilots keep up to date with current trends and recommendations. In incident investigations pilots are often criticised for not fully integrating into the ship’s “bridge team”. Unfortunately traditional Bridge Resource Management (BRM) courses are designed for ships’ officers and rarely cover pilotage passages. Maritime Resource Management (MRM) is based on the aviation industry model and covers the overall management of a passage, including the pilot and engineers etc.

A pilot must use all means at his disposal to ensure safety but must also receive support from the Master, officers and, where appropriate, VTS. Matt provided several investigation examples where failure to provide support to the pilot in a developing situation had contributed to the accident. Pilots are well trained in ship handling skills but not Human Factors yet investigations reveal that the majority (over 70%) of accidents involve failure of the Human Factors. Statistically, a vessel is twice as likely to be involved in a serious accident now as compared to five years ago and the costs of accidents have also doubled. MRM is based on the aviation model where both pilot and co-pilot double check each other’s actions. Despite being introduced into the Maritime world nearly 20 years ago by the Swedish Club P&I group, only Holland has adopted MRM as an integral part of pilot training. In the absence of any MRM courses being offered in the UK, the Liverpool pilots have created a course, accredited by the Swedish Club, specifically tailored for pilots. Each course is based on discussions around various scenarios and the analysis of incidents. Pilots are encouraged to be open about their perceptions of bridge teams and their role within it and the Cosco Busan case has provided much material for discussion.

The Swedish Club course is run over 4 days but the Liverpool pilots have found that 2 days is adequate. Courses are either run at Liverpool or at any external location.

Further details can be obtained from Matt Easton at: admin@liverpoolpilots.com

The modules for the course are available on the Swedish Club’s website:

www.swedishclub.com/main.php?mcid=3&mid=166&pid=61&tid=61

PILOTING VESSELS OVER AN AUTHORISATION LIMIT.

Following the HA’s taking over rrsponsibility for aothorising pilots following the 1987 Pilotage Act, many districts retained the authorisation structure and wording from the Trinity House authorisations. In some areas this included a clause stating that the authorisation limits could be overruled if a pilot of the appropriate grade wasn’t available. This meant that if a pilot boarded, say a Class 4 vessel and discovered that, as a result of its draft, the vessel was in fact a Class 3 vessel then his authorisation would cover him.  Following a recent case whereby a pilot, finding himself in such a position, refused to pilot the vessel, the UKMPA has sought a legal opinion on this historical anomaly and the following are extracts from the response:

There has never been a test-case on the point, but it would be very difficult to defend any pilot who willingly undertakes pilotage beyond the limits of his authorisation.

The leading relevant case is the Sea-Empress, where of course there was compliance with the regulated limits, but the rationale of the observation that the highest possible standards need to be observed was that the Milford Haven rules were themselves inadequate at the time.

….A pilot who undertakes the pilotage of a ship the size of which is beyond the limits of his authorisation is not only not authorised for that ship (and is therefore acting unlawfully) : but , in relation to that ship , is not truly authorised at all. acting unlawfully) : but , in relation to that ship , is not truly authorised at all.

It follows, therefore, that the statutory protection provided by Section 22 of the Pilotage Act (the £1,000 limit) would not apply in such a case; because the protection  benefits only an “authorised pilot”.

In consequence, a pilot who pilots a ship whose size is greater than the regulated limits of his authorisation forfeits the statutory protection and exposes himself to liability for unlimited (and probably enormous) civil damages.

The message therefore is perfectly clear and with modern communications there is no excuse for the draft to be incorrectly declared prior to pilot boarding especially since such errors are inevirably caused by laziness on behalf of the agent to check with the Captain prior to making the pilot booking. Let him take the blame!!

JCB

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/2008/01/08/pianc/ http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2008/01/08/pianc/#comments Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0000 JCB PIANC : Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses.

What’s this?

A new Day, another acronym! The title gives the impression that PIANC is a just another navigation forum but it is actually a highly specialised group of experts that looks at channels and how ships behave within them. The vast majority of PIANC’s work is undertaken by the boffins who have produced wonderfully complex formulae to cover the infinite variety of vertical and horizontal parameters with respect to block coefficients of ships, speeds and under keel clearances etc. Obviously this work is of great relevance to pilots and pilotage so fortunately, London pilot and Section Committee member, Don Cockrill has been made a full member of the “horizontal” working group, as part of his UKMPA IMPA portfolio. The following is edited from Don’s report and the minutes from the meeting. JCB

Working Group 49 meeting, October 2007

The working group is undertaking a revision of the WG 30 report published in 1997 which is basically the industry design bible for fairway and channel design. WG 30 had input from IMPA via Tony Boddy (retired Trinity House, London North).

One new aspect has been the introduction of risk assessment methodology and one member has produced a paper on risk and published studies that presented accident frequency and concepts of acceptable risk levels and all were agreed that this needs to be incorporated into the report.

IALA have been invited to join the group since they have expertise in information systems on positioning and navigation but it was decided that WG49 should not consider the design and implementation of fairway navigation aids because it was such a large and complex subject and a separate sub group may be formed to examine this aspect. However it was agreed that the relationship between navaids and fairway dimensions must be mentioned in the WG49 final report with reference to relevant IALA guidelines.

It was also agreed that the WG had a professional responsibility to ensure that any guidance given would result in safe channel dimensions, which, consequently, would be likely to be conservative (greater than the actual minimum required). It was also noted that in most cases, the existing WG30 guidance provides good conceptual design estimates of channel width requirements when the method is applied correctly but it needed to be made clear that the guidelines only provide a preliminary indication of fairway dimensions and that a detailed design process is required to optimise the fairway for the specific site/purpose. Don Cockrill raised the issue of skill levels of the mariners handling vessels in confined waterways because whilst pilots were experienced in such navigation, narrow channel navigation was outside the experience of the non piloted “bridge team”. It was therefore agreed that there may be some merit to including some parameters related to the skill of the vessel operator in the guidance. Other factors, including the use of escort towage may result in a modification of the existing method using the ship’s beam. Practical tests involving those experienced in narrow channel navigation should also be used to test the concepts.

Don’s report:-

The involvement of a pilot in this project is essential in that the WG is made up entirely of erudite hydrodynamic scientists, designers and engineers who by their own admission have very limited knowledge and understanding of the realities and practical aspects of ship navigation, handling and pilotage which are all directly impacted by the results of their work. IMPA therefore had great impact in the document by introducing the concept of the human factors aspect of shipping and pilotage in its many forms and a reference to the need for channel design to take into account the skill of the ship navigator in confined waters etc.

I have a short work list of specialist paragraphs to write and or contribute to on a variety of subjects. Any references, views, opinions, local experiences or other relevant input you may have which would possibly be of assistance to me in compiling concise and useful contributions to the project would be most gratefully received, preferably by the end of December.

Subjects I am specifically covering are:

1. The size and location of Pilot Boarding areas.

2. Helicopter pilot boarding operations with particular regard to ship manoeuvring space required.

3. Escort towage – how the use of escort tugs may impact on the design width of a channel.

4. Manoeuvring areas – Impact on required size of area in relation to tug use.

5. Tug operational rules and how they may affect channel design widths.

6. VTS & VTMS -what impact they may have on the design width and depth of a channel.

7. Inboard vessel navigation systems – descriptions, myths and realities!

Note that each item is generally only allocated space for a few hundred words maximum so I am only required to write broad outline descriptions on each with references for detailed information where appropriate.

See page 13

The next meeting is to be held at MARIN, Wargeningen in April 2008.

Don Cockrill. Email: don.cockrill@tesco.net

]]> http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2008/01/08/pianc/feed/ 0 http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2007/01/15/section-committtee-retirements/ http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2007/01/15/section-committtee-retirements/#comments Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0000 JCB Retirement Dave Devey

David Devey is the archetype pilot. I am privileged to be his contemporary. Of unprepossessing appearance and blunt manner he wins few friends by his more-or-less permanently scowling visage. He has proved, however, beyond any doubt, to possess the integrity of an uncut diamond and the grace of a pure-bred swan. His brilliance was first evidenced at the age of eleven when he won a scholarship to Birkenhead School, a high-level academic crammer which had earlier produced FE Smith – Lord Chancellor, first Earl of Birkenhead and close personal friend of WS Churchill. DD’s subsequent life was not lived on quite such a glittering plane, but his contribution to the world of pilotage has been every bit as great as anybody else has ever made to broader public life. During his apprenticeship he was hospitalised by a long period of tuberculosis and, for a while, his entire career was in doubt. Nothing daunted, however, he was licensed at Liverpool at the age of 24 in 1966. Nobody has ever doubted, from that day to this, either his competence as a navigator or his command of a bridge. He has remained first and foremost a practising pilot during a career which included, during Liverpool’s dramatic decline in the 1980s, a period of several years of service in West Africa. As it is said in Liverpool (and possibly elsewhere) he carried his bag. Shortly after his return to Liverpool, the introduction of the 1987 Pilotage Act obliged him to take a closer look at pilotage politics. He was elected a representative at Liverpool at about the same time that I retired from pilotage and had chosen to read law. It soon became clear that the introduction of the 1987 Act had been a disaster at Liverpool, where the majority of pilots had accepted the CHA’s terms of employment and were obliged to accept the unfortunate consequences, apparently for all time. In a body of mature pilots, competent, independent and generally blameless, the loss of their former independence as self-employed men was a matter which DD and others sought to redress. He was elected to the UKMPA Section Committee at about the same time. In 1993 DD and the late Bobby Moses asked me if in my view the Act would allow employed pilots to revert to self-employment by choice. I said that it appeared to do so. DD took further advice from several other lawyers. All confirmed the same view. By 1997, through argument, persistence, integrity and professional pride DD had led the pilots of Liverpool out of their hated employment and back into a position where once again, through the creation of a formal co-operative and scrupulous invigilation of pilotage accounts, self-respect was restored and they re-emerged as the independent professionals and principals which the House of Lords has held throughout history that they should be. It was as though they had come out of jail. To have procured such complete, obvious and paramount success out of circumstances of unmitigated disaster is an achievement which few other pilotpoliticians (if any) have ever made.

Selfishness is a word which is unknown to DD. Through his service on the UKMPA Section Committee he was only too well aware of the depression and dissatisfaction which afflict the pilots of other ports where direct employment by the CHA exists. Through his success at Liverpool he was after many years able to demonstrate to the pilots of Belfast that, provided only that they had the stomach for a fight if necessary, they too could revert to the privileges of self-employment and shed the unnecessary yoke of employment. Belfast responded. They were (as if anybody ever needed to ask a Belfast man) game for a fight. On 1^st December 2006, the pilots of Belfast reverted to self-employment. Three weeks later, on 20^th December, a delegation attended DD’s retirement party at Neston Cricket Club, near Liverpool. The gratitude which they expressed to DD (to say nothing of the smiles on their faces!) was, beyond any question, the most heart-warming scene I have ever witnessed during a lifetime in the world of pilotage.

Similarly, the members of Humber Pilots Ltd have had no more doughty advocate; and nor could they have wished for one. He alone has maintained the legal battle. After the collapse of the HPL Employment Appeal Case, it was DD alone who sought further legal advice, enquiring whether there might, perhaps, be a stone which is yet unturned? DD is the first to recognise that a vast amount of work remains to be done to protect and promote the interests of the pilotage world. He would be the last man to pretend that his work is complete. It remains to be continued by those of us who remain in harness.

DD, I salute you and I thank you.

Barrie Youde

Retirement: Paul Haysom

This year two long serving members of the Section committee, Dave Devey, Liverpool (Region 5) and Paul Haysom, Great Yarmouth (Region 2) stood down due to retirement. During the conference proceedings Joe Wilson made a presentation to Dave and Paul in recognition of their dedication to the UKMPA. Both members received warm applause from the delegates present.

Paul Haysom, who was presented with a fine pair of binoculars, will be particularly missed by the small ports members (who have both financial and logistical difficulties in attending the annual conferences) since he provided a valuable link as their representative. In this role, coupled with his remit to encourage recruitment he has managed to ensure that pilots in the smaller ports were made aware of the benefits of memberships and their membership has increased during Paul’s time on the Section Committee. Paul’s main brief however was dealing with insurances and during the last three years, following the withdrawal of pilots’ unique cover by Navigators & General, Paul found himself having to negotiate a policy with a new insurer. It is to his credit that the new policy with Royal & Sun Alliance arranged through Circle Insurance brokers has delivered additional cover for a similar premium. Dave Devey received a golfing trolley and a new copy of the Pilotage Act! Tributes to Dave’s dedication to the pilotage cause appear on pages 11 and 12.

]]> http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2007/01/15/section-committtee-retirements/feed/ 0 http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2006/04/15/section-committee-0406/ http://www.pilotmag.co.uk/2006/04/15/section-committee-0406/#comments Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0000 JCB SECTION COMMITTEE

WORK IN PROGRESS

As detailed in Joe Wilson’s report, Section Committee members continue to work in the interests of the membership. Whilst much of the work is administrative the value of such work is essential in ensuring that our views are presented to the important national and international fora.  Briefly, John Pretswell ensures that all the finances are kept healthy and the requisite returns made on time. Paul Haysom has been continuing his valuable work on the insurances and membership recruitment and the new insurance policies have resulted in interest from potential members.  The Technical and Training Committee continues to cover the many and varied topics within its remit and in particular continue to finalise the ETCS project which is now with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). The next meeting of the T&T committee is on the 28^th April and committee Chairman Gareth Rees will be submitting a report for the July issue.  The most important area of UKMPA involvement at this time is with the DfT in working towards new legislation to replace the 1987 Pilotage act and within the Port Marine Safety Code Working Group (PMSCWG) to oversee compliance issues and the implementation of MAIB recommendations to that group. This diplomatically sensitive task has fallen to Don Cockrill who, along with Brian Wilson, attended two meetings on the 28^th March which dealt National Occupational Standards (NOS) and Pilotage Exemption Certificates (PEC).

The following is a resume of Don’s report of proceedings.

NOS meeting – Minutes of previous meeting (16/2/05)

It may be recalled that we submitted significant comment on the minutes of that meeting and I therefore suggested that the minutes should be effectively shelved with a note that the UKMPA disputed the minutes of 16/2/05. This was agreed by all.

Potential outcomes – There then followed what can best be described as intense and lively debate on the way forward. In general there was agreement on the ethos and aims of the NOS and although there was some opposition to the concept of a general mandatory qualification it was generally acknowledged that since the PMSC requires adoption of the NOS then in effect the NOS will be mandatory. There was general discussion and agreement on the concept of any qualification being a type of certificate of competence. This would cover generic matters for Pilots and Harbourmasters as appropriate. For pilots, the CHA authorisation would in effect cover the local components. Discussion also ensued on the value and feasibility of the recently launched MNTB Maritime Foundation Degree as an alternative.

For those who may not be aware it should be realised that a Foundation degree is not of the same standard as a conventional degree. It is more of a standard to be reached which would be regarded as an entry level for a degree course and offering various module exemptions from that course.

Brian explained The UKMPA’S ongoing work within Europe. In particular he detailed the ETCS project and also the ongoing resulting work with EMSA pending EMSA acceptance of ETCS.

Awarding Authority – It was discussed and agreed that in essence that the MCA would be

the awarding authority for the NOS competence certificate but this then involves examination and overseeing issues.  It was generally agreed that the now established V103 VTS model could be appropriate for the NOS certification scheme.

Target dates – We have now been invited to participate in Port Skills and Safety Ltd.  (PSSL) and a meeting has been scheduled by PSSL for 25^th May to discuss the maritime certificate scheme and NOS issues.

The MCA proposed an outline target date for the NOS certification scheme to be in place by 2010. The DfT desire a shorter implementation and the UKMPA pointed out that the work was already done in respect of NOS and ETCS and that this working group needed to ensure that the UK system runs in line or indeed leads the European model.

Process Routes – Maritime Foundation

Degree (MFD). – PSSL gave an outline description of the MFD and the Ports leg.  National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) training. – PSSL are keen on this avenue. Their variant is termed VRQ which would encompass all existing qualifications.  It is exam based rather than the “on the job” assessments upon which the current NVQ system is based. The attraction is that it would qualify for government funding. The UKMPA do not consider this appropriate for pilots.

Specifications – It was explained that whatever the system there is a need to take the NOS elements and convert them into specific targets towards a goal. MCA suggested that this should be contracted out to expert educationalists.

Funding – The Dft were asked to fund it on the basis of it being a Dft requirement. I pointed out that the Dft had already funded the work so far and so there was no point in them funding any repetition of the work to date. That went down well with the DfT.  As ever it is a resources issue for the MCA.  Way Ahead – Brian explained that the ETCS EMSA timetable may well dictate the UK intentions.

AOB – There was very little more said. I took the opportunity to repeat points raised more than once during the meeting.

·        That there must be no lowering of current professional standards. I earlier drew the meetings attention of the way in which STCW 95 has lowered standards rather than improving them.

·        That the practical training MUST be done by serving pilots – it is not appropriate for the colleges to have too great a role in all this.

Don Cockrill

Joe Wilson (Tees): Amendments to the Pilotage Act.

John Pretswell (Forth): Preparing the budget

Geoff Taylor (Tees): As acting President of

IMPA, Geoff’s workload had increased enormously but Geoff had been tireless in attending meetings and seminars around the world promoting the pilotage agenda and making important contacts. Due to his forthcoming retirement Geoff has now stood down from the Section committee.

Peter Wylie (Tees): Was elected as representative

for region 3 at the conference.

Don Cockrill (London): Had also been

tenacious in working with the MCA, DfT and pushing the agenda on pilots National Occupational Standards (NOS) on the PMSC working group.

Dave Devey (Liverpool): Attended the

Harbour Master meetings and was assisting Joe on amendments to the Pilotage Act.  David had also been working on preparations for Kristian Pederson’s claim against ABP for unfair dismissal.

Paul Haysom (Great Yarmouth): Paul had

worked throughout the year in finalizing a new insurance policy to replace the Navigators & General insurance cover that had been withdrawn in 2004.

John Pearn (Milford Haven): Has replaced Kristian Pederson and is responsible for overseeing technical and training issues.  John has also agreed to take over the EMPA brief from Les when Les’ term ended in 2007.

It is easy for the general membership to forget the vast amount of work undertaken behind the scenes by the Section committee on their behalf.  The following is a brief update on work during the last quarter.

Vice Chairman: Joe Wilson continues administrative work and attends meetings supporting Chairman Les Cate

Treasurer: John Pretswell continues with on-going administration work of Secretary and treasurer, keeping the accounts up to date and preparing budget for 2005 conference.  Finalising the paper work for the PNPF trustee elections for voting in November.

Finalising the paper work for the Section Committee elections for the 2005 conference.

Don Cockrill: Preparing the UKMPA position on the PMSC and National Occupational Standards for pilots for presentation to the MCA working group on standards. Monitoring MAIB reports for items of relevance to UKMPA members. Likewise with IMO papers.

Geoff Taylor: IMPA President Geoff has continued to be tireless as the UKMPA’s “foreign ambassador”! Geoff attended the Biennial Congress of the Canadian Marine Pilots Association and gave a well received presentation. As with all these meetings many important contacts are made on the fringes of the conference and Geoff has established a good working relationship with the secretarygeneral of the IMO, Efthimios Mitropoulos. Geoff ensured that IMPA fully supported the IMO World Maritime Day initiative.  With this year’s theme being “International Shipping, The carrier of World Trade” Geoff successfully arranged for pilots to take a journalist on board for a piloted passage.

Most recently Geoff has attended the Seatrade London International Maritime Convention. All these initiatives have resulted in positive press stories about pilots and pilotage and are slowly helping to break down the “them and us” barriers that all too often exist between pilots and port management. We all have a common interest in ensuring a port’s success.  Paul Haysom: Finalising the insurance policies for presentation to conference for approval.

Kristian Pedersen: The preliminary hearing to consider a full employment tribunal action for unfair dismissal against ABP was successful and a further hearing is set for November. Whilst all this has been going on Kristian has had to find alternative employment and I understand that he has secured a pilotage job in Nigeria. We wish him well. Kristian’s departure has created a vacancy on Section Committee for Region 6 and this has been filled by John Pearn from Milford Haven.