119th UKMPA CONFERENCE

September 6th, 2008 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Features | 1 Comment »

In a departure from tradition in order to make attendance more attractive for delegates and their wives, it was decided at the 2006 Conference to move the date of the annual conference from November to May and to find a more central venue. UKMPA Section committee member and Tees pilot Peter Wylie is to be congratulated on finding the Crown Hotel at Harrogate and making all the necessary arrangements for what was a very well supported and successful conference. Having arrived at Harrogate on the eve of the conference the delegates naturally observed merchant navy tradition by merrily socialising and the Hotel catering staff also observed MN tradition by setting off the fire alarms at 0545 the following morning.

Needless to say, your normally fine and dapper representatives were looking decidedly the worse for wear as they shuffled outside to the muster point in the car park!! Of course, as professional seafarers, once fortified by breakfast they were all fully alert and attentive for the conference proceedings. The following is a brief outline of the agenda items discussed. The full minutes are available for members on the UKMPA website.

PROCEEDINGS

PILOTS’ NATIONAL PENSION FUND (PNPF):

Secretariat report: Debbie Marten

Debbie’s report is on page13?

Trustee report: Richard Williamson: (Boston pilot & Chairman of the pilot Trustees)

Richard provided delegates with an overview of the fund and provided detail on the following topics:

Trustees:

Secretariat:

Managers and Advisors:

Meetings:

Membership:

The contributions paid to the Fund

Investments and Strategy:

Triennial Valuation:

The fund is currently undergoing the triennial valuation and Richard explained in detail the new requirements that had replaced the previous Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR).

Legal Issues:

Regarding the responsibilities the existing non pilot members of the fund and their responsibility towards the fund the Trustees had reluctantly had to seek legal advice about who could potentially be made responsible for any deficit and the matter was now the subject of a court case.

During the subsequent Q&A session Richard answered questions regarding the fund and the pending court case.

Richard explained that the case was being brought solely to establish whether or not a liability existed. If, as anticipated, such liabilities were found to exist the specific liabilities of each party would subsequently be analysed and set. In the case of Trust Ports the port’s trustees were unable to commit to payments unless required to do so by a court order. It was even possible that the Government may be liable in that it was the 1987 Act which had caused the problems in the first place. Because this case was unique, any outcome was impossible to predict but the hope was that it would result in a clear allocation of liabilities and that the pensions regulator would then ensure that those liable would honour their commitments .

MAIN CONFERENCE SESSION

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Joe Wilson (Tees)

Following one minute’s silence in remembrance of those pilots worldwide who had been killed in service since the last conference, Joe updated the delegates on the latest issues affecting the Association and the key points are in Joe’s report on page 12?

FINANCIAL REPORT: John Pretswell (Forth)

John referred delegates to the financial statements included in the delegates’ papers which are available to members. Membership now stood at 492 pilots from 46 districts.

RULE CHANGES: John Pretswell.

John explained the reason behind the proposed rule changes to rules 4d, 10h, 14c, 15 & 18 which had been previously circulated to the delegates. All the changes were approved unanimously by the delegates.

ELECTION OF OFFICIALS

John oversaw the election / re-election of the Section Committee members and their deputies. The list of SC members is on page 18.

MARITIME & COASTGUARD AGENCY (MCA) Peter Wylie (Tees)

Peter explained that he held the MCA brief for the Association and this involved being on 5 committees.

• UK Safety of Navigation (UKSON)
• VTS (with Jon Stafford {London}).
• National Occupational Standards (NOS) (With Brian Wilson, Belfast) is frustrating in that the process has been stalled for several years, mainly as a result of the Ports’ concerns regarding costs. However, the DfT want it, the MCA want it and so the ports are reluctantly having to accept the concept.
• Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) steering group: Involved in rewriting the Formal Risk Assessment (FRA) for the Guide to Good Practice (With John Harrison-Nayes, Medway) This is a new Working Group and the MCA had specifically invited UKMPA input. The MCA had drawn up a consultation document and the only two responses were from Peter & John! Such outcomes serve to enhance the reputation of the UKMPA within the MCA & DfT. The ports now have to have comprehensive FRA procedures in place. Another development to emerge from the PMSC steering group is that pilots can send MAIB reports back if they believe that the content is inaccurate.
• PEC’s: It had been agreed (reluctantly by some!) that PEC holders should have a level of competency equivalent to that of a pilot for the same ship especially when working with tugs etc. The result of the work of this sub committee had been M307. The DfT had agreed that PEC’s should only be issued following an assessment by a pilot.

During the subsequent Q&A session the issue of PEC abuse was raised and Peter stated that if the details were passed on to him he would raise the matter directly with the MCA / DfT.

TECHNICAL & TRAINING Gareth Ress (Southampton)

Gareth announced that he would be standing down in November after 4 years as chairman and that Brian Wilson (Belfast) would be taking over the chair. He then provided details of the Committee’s work since the last conference. T&TC had been involved in:

E-navigation: The T&TC continued to monitor events and releases.

Pilot Boarding and Landing Code: After much delay this had now been ratified and published.

SOLAS: was currently looking at the securing of platforms on combination ladders to the ship’s side but no recommendations were expected in the near future.

RNLI : John Nurser (Head of RNLI technical dept) was a regular attendee at the T&T meetings and his expertise on small craft and their fittings was of great value to the committee.

Deep Sea Pilots: Roger Francis had put in valuable hard work on UKSON, VTS, wind farms and the Vessel Monitoring Directive.

Azipilot Project:

Gareth explained that this was an EU funded project being run by Newcastle University to train mariners in the use of marine Azimuthing Control Devices. Other partners in the project were several European shipping companies, nautical colleges and maritime research bodies. Gareth has been joined by Ian Simpson (Harwich) on the project but delegates were requested to notify Gareth or Ian of any others who may wish to participate in any way. Gareth’s Working Group will be involved in establishing current usage, training, on-board operational procedures and the examination of incident reports.

Q&A

There followed a discussion from the floor on azimuth propulsion with several districts handling cruise liners considering it unsatisfactory that manoeuvring was entirely dependent on the Master. Harwich pilots had been on a simulator course which had provided some insight into the manoeuvring techniques involved. In Aberdeen they had been handling vessels fitted with azi-propulsion for nearly 30 years and had developed their own simulators which were frequently used by shipping companies. In their experience, the training given to Masters was not always good and sometimes non existent. Another aspect of azi propulsion was that with the lifespan of bearings limited to a few years it was also essential for pilots to be able to handle failure situations.

NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS Brian Wilson(Belfast).

Brian expressed frustration at the fact that after 8 years nothing was progressing. The initiative had started with BPIT but following the agenda being handed to the Ports the situation had totally stalled and it was evident that the ports’ just weren’t interested in adopting pilotage standards. Brian suggested that one way forward was for the UKMPA to take over responsibility for the training and authorisation of pilots by means of a form of pilotage commission based on the Dutch model but he urged members to engage in constructive thought as to the best way forward. During the subsequent discussion it was agreed that the principles behind the idea were sound and it was suggested that the UKMPA drafted a !position paper2 to submit to the Government for consideration in the Marine Bill.

MARNIS Nigel Allen (Southampton)

Nigel provided delegates with a brief introduction to the MARNIS project, which is a 20million Euro EU project started in 2004 and now nearing completion

The key area for pilots is the Port Operations and Decision Support System (POADSS) portable pilotage unit. The Cosco Busan allison in the USA had led to calls for such units to be made mandatory and this was likely to accelerate the agenda in Europe.

Nigel provided details of the different units offered by the various manufacturers and informed delegates that the latest units contained more advanced features than a few years ago. The cost, size and weight of units had come down .

With respect to the actual MARNIS project Nigel explained the work packages that he was involved in and in his opinion the technology was now reaching the point where a pilot with a laptop could download all the information currently provided by shore VTS directly to a pilot’s laptop and the port’s VTS system would become a data processing centre (silent VTS).

POADSS had already made amazing advances and the latest version incorporated the following new features:

• Dynamic Under Keel Clearance (DUKC)
• Web Mapping Services (WMS).
• Dynamic Path Prediction. (DPP)

The official “live” demonstration of POADSS will take place in Lisbon on 16^th October. Other MARNIS elements will also be demonstrated around that time.

Nigel concluded the presentation by explaining that the key function of MARNIS was to explore concepts that would integrate the on-board needs with those of shore authorities of the member states.

EMPA Dave Williamson (Liverpool)

Dave had attended the EMPA conference and delegates had been concerned by one speaker from the European Community Ship owners Association (ECSA) who stated that.

• ECSA doesn’t accept the validity of the rejection of Ports Packages 1 & 2
• ECSA doesn’t agree that pilotage represents a safety service
• ECSA considers pilotage to be a monopoly abuse of competition
• ECSA considers Pilotage should only be compulsory after an open risk assessment
• ECSA favours an increased use of PEC’s

Safety Campaign

This had been a joint IMPA, EMPA & UKMPA survey and had received a good response. The replies indicate that around 19% of vessels are non compliant and this can be considered a conservative assessment of the true situation. The concern is that this figure has not improved since the first survey undertaken in 1994. This figure will be brought to the attention of the Commissioners and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and other relevant stakeholders.

Competition

This is still a major problem in Denmark, Finland and the Baltic Sea

Technical & Training

Dave provided details of the following areas which the EMPA T&T had been involved with:

• Unmanned Port Traffic Communication System (UnPorTraCS). The unmanned isn’t ashore in the VTS but on board the ship! Basically a new term for shore based pilotage. So far this project hasn’t been supported by EU funding but again EMPA are monitoring the proposals.
• The Azipilot project
• High minimum speed of vessels. Reports have been received of a new containership with a Dead Slow Ahead speed of 12 kts.
• Mooring of large vessels.
• Safe manning and equipment of pilot cutters.
• Motorways of the Sea (MOSES) This is a cross sector transport initiative looking at streamlining transport and removing bottlenecks in the system. For shipping the most serious bottleneck is considered to be the need to slow down to pick up a pilot!

Representation

EMPA is a very effective and respected body with representation on a wide range of maritime related bodies and working groups (including ECSA). Following on from the NOS and ECTS, EMPA are currently producing protocols based on the International Standard for pilotage Organisations (ISPO). These are basically ISO standards for pilots and pilotage and although Dave expressed some concerns they are generally positive for pilots, especially the self employed districts. Full details are available on the EMPA website.

IMPA Don Cockrill (London)

Don had attended the IMPA conference in Cuba with John Pearn. He had stood for election as a Vice President but his application had been defeated. He would be standing again in Bangkok this year and hoped to be elected this time round.

The UK bid to host the 2012 IMPA conference had been successful and plans were already underway. The venue will be the Gorman hotel adjacent to Tower Bridge and although the organisation will be handled by a professional company delegates were invited to participate in the planning and organisation of what promised to be a very prestigious event.

Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC).

Don sat on this body as pilot representative and provided the practical mariner’s input.

E-Navigation

Although the initial flurry of activity regarding e-navigation had calmed down, IALA were deeply involved in promoting the e-nav agenda through IMO and IMPA had a pilot representative on the e-nav committee.

In addition to his IMPA role, Don participated in other UKMPA activities and one new area was assisting Joe Wilson in participating in MAIB investigations. This involvement was not as a UKMPA member but more as an expert providing a pilot’s eye view of an incident but it is an additional and important element in enhancing the professional reputation of the UKMPA. In a similar manner, Don also assists Joe in participating in CHIRP investigations.

INSURANCE Simon Campbell (Forth)

Simon is working with Drew Smith and Circle Insurance to enable pilots to renew policies on line and download their relevant receipts and documentation. The policies had been successful in achieving payouts to pilots in several cases. One case is of particular interest to those who have previously questioned the need for independent insurance since it involved a payout for loss of earnings to an employed pilot who had been de-authorised by his CHA. (see Insurance article on page 17)

SURVEY OF DISTRICTS John Pearn (Milford Haven)

John explained that because all UK ports operated independently the UKMPA needed to collate an overview for each district. 37 replies had been received from 46 districts and this had provided a valuable National overview. Full details of the survey are available for members on the UKMPA website.

HUMBER Barrie Youde Barrister, ex Liverpool pilot)

Barrie Youde’s statement appears on page 7

The HPL members had requested that Barrie pass on their gratitude to all those from the UKMPA who had generously contributed towards the case and Chairman Joe Wilson, paid tribute to Barrie for his tireless dedication in supporting the HPL members which had resulted in such a positive outcome. This was acknowledged by warm applause from the delegates.

WEBSITE

Due to the difficulties involved in maintaining communications through the UNITE office in London Joe was keen to make the website the communication focal point of the Association. He acknowledged that there were problems with the existing site and requests feedback from the districts as to ideas and layout.

FUTURE CONFERENCES

Joe Wilson expressed satisfaction at the number of delegates attending which tended to confirm that the decision to hold the conference at Harrogate had been correct. He proposed that rather than have an Interim Delegates Meeting in 6 months time that there should be a one day conference on the HQS Wellington in May 2009 (Date to be confirmed) with a possible return to Harrogate for a full 2 day conference in 2010.

DAY 2: GUEST SPEAKERS

Following introducing the guest speakers for the day, Joe invited Michael Grey to open the conference..

OPENING SPEECH Michael Grey (Lloyd’s List)

Michael Grey provided the delegates with a very lively and interesting speech which revealed a full depth of knowledge regarding pilotage issues. Michael expressed particular concern regarding the “blame culture” whereby the zero tolerance of any maritime incident was leaving pilots increasingly exposed as an individual upon which all the blame could be piled, even though the incident may have resulted from events outside his control. He concluded by advising pilots that they should use the maritime press to challenge uninformed opinions and that they should also be pro-active in promoting their work by inviting representatives from the various maritime sectors to join them on a trip. “Awareness is a powerful antidote to ignorance”.

The speech was acknowledged by warm applause from the delegates.

(A subsequent article by Michael, based on this presentation. Was published in Lloyd’s List and is available on the pilotmag website)

MAIB Stephen Meyer (Chief Executive MAIB)

Stephen opened his presentation by explaining the role of the MAIB and how it functions.

The sole remit of the MAIB representative is “future safety”. The MAIB have greater powers than the police but this power has only been granted on the understanding that none of the information obtained can be released to any other party or used in any form of court case.

The MAIB is totally opposed to prosecutions of anyone involved in a maritime incident because the “blame culture” results in everybody covering up the causes and remaining silent on legal advice. It should be acknowledged that accidents do happen but there should be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that one mistake doesn’t become a disaster.

Addressing the concern raised in the editorial of the January issue of The Pilot regarding the use of MAIB reports in court proceedings, Stephen explained that whilst the reports inevitably would provide investigators with an indication of where to focus their enquiries, it was up to those bodies to gather the necessary evidence to apportion blame or prosecute. Generally, what is revealed by the MAIB in their report is readily available to others and great care is taken to protect individual anonymity.

There had been a case where a company had commenced disciplinary action on the basis of information contained within a report and the MAIB took immediate action to stop the proceedings which were subsequently dropped.

Another key issue is creating internationally agreed standards for investigations and Stephen has been active in tabling a resolution through IMO to introduce a “Code” on accident investigations that will make it mandatory for all flag states to undertake a thorough investigation, independent of any of those being undertaken by those with vested interests. Stephen has also been active in Europe and a new directive is being drafted for member states to undertake investigations based on the MAIB model.

The MAIB investigate all accidents to UK flagged vessels and any accident occurring in UK waters. In contrast to traditional investigations which assume that the “system” is right and that the “man on the spot” is at fault, the MAIB take a detached view and although the final cause may result from the man on the spot, the fault may lie in the system which may leave the individual unsupported. Pilots are particularly prone to being in this category.

Current areas of concern involve the trend by cruise companies to voyage to remote parts of the world such as the Antarctic and the on-going issues of fatigue, manning and competence, especially on the short sea trade sector. The fishing industry continues to have an unacceptably high casualty rate and the unregulated leisure industry also gives cause for concern.

As for pilotage it is obvious that pilots work in the highest risk element of a vessel’s voyage but as an outsider it is very difficult for a pilot to integrate into a vessel’s “bridge team” however simple or comprehensive that team may be. Regrettably some pilots are reluctant to integrate, display complacency and don’t communicate their intentions, especially with regard to potential risks. Every MAIB investigation into pilotage incidents reveals some element of complacency on behalf of the pilot and Stephen provided some graphic examples from recent incidents to illustrate this point.

The most important aspect of pilotage was a comprehensive master / pilot exchange being undertaken.

In conclusion, Stephen emphasised that pilots must operate to high standards, they should be demanding similar high standards from the bridge team and Stephen considered it the role of the MAIB to ensure that CHA’s recognised their own responsibilities towards ensuring high pilot standards and that they also fully supported the pilots in their difficult role.

Q&A

PEC monitoring?

The MAIB considered it essential that a PEC holder should be assessed for his ship handling expertise and also that the PEC should be ship specific and that the practice of permitting a PEC to be used on multiple ships should be discontinued.

Commercial pressures placed on pilots by CHA’s to handle ships in marginal conditions?

Pilots were rightly involved in undertaking “dynamic” risk assessments which, unlike the air industry, were not easily quantified. There was evidence to indicate that pilots were boarding ships and under pressure to accept riskier situations than they would normally consider acceptable and the MAIB were working towards creating an understanding within the Industry that poor standards are unacceptable. Stephen acknowledged that it would be a slow process.

What powers does the MAIB have to follow up recommendations and ensure enforcement?

The MAIB has no powers of enforcement of recommendations but a recent amendment to the regulations mean that the MAIB can now contact those affected by a recommendation and request information as to how they intend to address them. These contacts and the response are sent to the Secretary of State once per year and are publically available. This has proven to be very successful in ensuring that recommendations are acted upon.

The respondents also have a legal obligation to inform the MAIB if there are subsequently any changes to the written responses but the MAIB doesn’t have the resources to physically check that the recommendations have been acted upon.

In the Prospero (pod propulsion failure) incident in a compulsory pilotage district why did the MAIB consider that the Master rather than the pilot should have been manoeuvring the vessel?

In the opinion of the MAIB it was considered impossible for pilots to be fully conversant with the manoeuvring characteristics of every vessel and therefore in some instances there should be teamwork with the pilot directing the manoeuvre and the Master using the controls to achieve the desired result.

Concern was expressed that the “sharing” of the manoeuvre could result in the pilot not being fully in control at a critical time and the PMSC stated that a CHA should ensure that pilots were trained to be qualified to conduct the vessels to which they may be allocated?

Stephen felt that in the case of specialist vessels, in view of the wide variety of different equipment in use, the term “conduct” needed a realistic interpretation and in his opinion, if the bridge team was experienced and competent in manoeuvring the specialist ships then the pilot needn’t necessarily (and probably couldn’t) be trained to handle them. The pilot should be supported by professional standards on board the ship and the MAIB considered it their role to ensure that onboard standards were raised to ensure such support.

DfT: James Weeden (Ports Division) & Geoff Stokes (Port Liaison Policy Leader:MCA)

James provided an overview of general ports policy and explained that the role of the Government was set the regulatory framework with particular emphasis on the environment and safety and how this had led to the draft Marine Bill to introduce supportive legislation for the PMSC on the following port safety measures:

• General directions to be available to every HA
• Power for the Secretary of State (SoS).to issue directions to a HA to underpin the PMSC.
• Power to remove CHA status from a port that no longer operates commercially should the port request it.
• PEC management to underpin the PMSC and M307 guidelines.
• Power to remove a PEC
• Make it an offence to fraudulently use a PEC
• Extend the officer grading from Master and 1^st mate to enable other officers to obtain PEC
• National Occupational Standards to become mandatory .
• Closure of Harbours.

James concluded his presentation by detailing the consultation process and encouraged delegates to submit responses as key stakeholders.

Q&A

Deep concern was expressed that the PEC proposal to reduce the qualifications from the “bona Fide” Master and First Mate was effectively opening the PEC system to abuse whereby a company could obtain PEC’s for its officers who could then move from ship to ship and effectively provide a competitive pilotage service.

James reassured delegates that there was certainly no intention within the Bill to alter the existing pilotage and PEC regime and that the advantage of producing a “draft” Bill with a 12 week statutory consultation period was that potential anomalies such as the wording of the clause identified by the UKMPA could be addressed and he offered an invitation to the UKMPA to explain their concerns in detail to the DfT team drafting the Bill.

What would happen to the consultation submissions if the Bill was not introduced?

They would be examined in detail and any important factors would be incorporated into the PMSC as an interim measure.

In response to specific concern from delegates over the planned removal of the term “bona fide” in the draft Bill, Geoff Stokes agreed that his personal opinion was that it was not just important that the officer was a bona fide member of the ship’s crew but it was also essential that he should be competent in handling the vessel and that the PEC should therefore be ship specific.

Would the National Occupational Standards be implemented by 2010 as agreed?

James replied that had the Bill been given parliamentary time in the current programme then NOS would have been incorporated by the 2010 deadline but if the Bill was delayed then it was unlikely. However, Geoff emphasised that both the DfT and the MCA were both wanting to progress the NOS implementation.

Joe Wilson concluded this session by thanking James and Geoff for providing the delegates with the clarifications on the important topics and welcomed and accepted the invitation to meet with the DfT to discuss the issues in detail with the relevant officials.

MCA Geoff Stokes (Port Liaison Policy Leader)

Geoff explained the different roles of the MCA and DfT. The DfT devise the policy and the MCA deal with the operational aspect.

As a ex pilot (Dover) Geoff regretted that it takes a serious incident to trigger any change in the maritime world and acknowledged that despite 12 years having passed since the event that triggered the creation of the PMSC it had still not been implemented by all ports. However, despite being voluntary it was now being followed by the majority of ports. The PMSG steering group, which consisted of representatives from the Department, MCA, ports, ship owners and pilots, met twice per year to discuss progress and with respect to the PEC issue this group had produced MN 307 which establishes the procedures and guidelines for PEC’s. In Geoff’s opinion, within a compulsory pilotage district the conduct of the vessel with a PEC should be indistinguishable from one with an authorised pilot on board.

Currently the outstanding items within the PMSC are NOS and the Formal Risk Assessments.

Geoff provided details of other work undertaken by the MCA in support of the PMSC such as verification visits and compliance exercises. Geoff emphasised the importance of the Duty Holder who, if any person is concerned over any matter regarding PMSC compliance, is the person who must be notified if all other avenues have failed prior to contacting the MCA.

With respect to NOS, the MCA fully understood the pilots’ frustration with the lack of progress and were keen to see a pilot qualification introduced as soon as possible.

In response to further concerns over the lack of progress on NOS, James Weeden agreed to raise these issues at a forthcoming meeting with the ports.

Geoff Stokes believed that progress would have to be made because NOS was included in the Bill, the SoS had accepted that standards were essential and most importantly, the MAIB had referred to the Standards in recent reports. The pressure on the ports was therefore at a point where they could no longer afford to delay.

Joe Wilson closed this session by again thanking Geoff & James for their comprehensive responses but requested that Geoff and James advised their department heads that the pilots wanted the standards and that it was the Government’s responsibility to put an end to the 8 years of delay.

P&I CLUBS Andy Kirkham (International Group of P&I Clubs)

Andy opened his presentation by explaining that the International Group was a growing consortium of P&I Clubs and that he worked for the North of England Club. The 13 Clubs which formed the IG now covered nearly 10% of the World’s tonnage.

In detailing the P&I Club structuring Andy referred delegates to the website www.igpandi.org. The group shares information and where there is a particular field of interest to ship owners they set up sub committees. One such group is the Pilotage Sub Committee which looks at “pilot error” claims and with respect to this the IMO resolution A960 and the MPEX document were very important.

In providing an an example that had been classed as “pilot error” where damage had been caused by the engine being put the wrong way during a manoeuvre, delegates intervened to express their opinion that the example chosen was in fact a ship’s error since the pilot had given the correct engine order.

Andy responded that in the opinion of the P&I Clubs, when a pilot arrived on the bridge he became a temporary member of the bridge team and therefore if there was an error made by the bridge team, because the pilot had the conduct of the vessel the P&I Clubs preferred to class the incident as “pilot error” in preference to some long winded grouping such as “pilot as part of the bridge team error”. This remark generated some dissent from the delegates.

Andy then provided some statistics which revealed that the number of claims was falling but the concern was that the costs of each claim were escalating.

The P&I Clubs had welcomed the IMO resolution A960 and IMPA had been very helpful in providing the Clubs with feedback from around the World from pilotage organisations regarding compliance with A960. Andy also emphasised the importance of a formal Master / Pilot exchange and passage planning. P&I Clubs accept that the ship cannot produce a comprehensive berth to berth plan but there should be a basic appreciation of the intended passage by the ship’s bridge team as per the A960 definition.

In the subsequent discussion, the P&I club’s use of the term “pilot error” caused considerable debate. Andy acknowledged that there was a problem with the term and that they were now working with EMPA & IMPA when examining certain cases. Joe Wilson offered the service of the UKMPA Section Committee to provide pilotage input into the claims process and Andy agreed to progress this within the IG.

Other issues discussed were manning and competence and Andy stated that there was a growing pressure to ensure “safe” manning rather than the “minimum” manning parameters which currently provided a commercial advantage to the sub standard end of the industry and penalised the high quality operators.

In conclusion all were agreed that this had been a most constructive session and that closer, regular contact between the P&I Clubs and pilots would be beneficial to both bodies. Joe emphasised his appreciation of Andy attending the conference and being prepared to “put his head above the parapet”.

LEGAL LIABILITIES: Kevin Austen (Barlow, Clyde & Gilbert)

Kevin opened his presentation by displaying some of the negative and sensational press coverage that accompanied any maritime incident.

There was a general but incorrect viewpoint in the Industry that pilots couldn’t be held liable for anything. However, what the ship owner was really interested in was minimising losses and generally their concern was over the fact that CHA’s could limit or absolve themselves from any liability.

Pilots could be held personally liable under civil and criminal law and the real risk to a UK pilot was to be involved in a civil case where he may be subjected to a disciplinary hearing by his CHA and in this case his authorisation may be at risk and this would probably be more punitive than any penalty imposed through a court!

A very important fact regarding liability is that a pilot is only legally a pilot if he actually has the conduct of the vessel. If a Captain takes over to manoeuvre the ship then the pilot wouldn’t be liable in the case of an incident.

Kevin clarified aspects of Limitation of Liability and the difference between “command” and “conduct”..

Turning to criminal law, a pilot could be prosecuted for such offences as manslaughter and pollution. Pilots could also be found criminally liable under the Merchant Shipping Act and an example of this might be criminal proceedings resulting from excessive speed.

Kevin then clarified a few general legal aspects of pilotage such as the decision whether or not to proceed. In fog, case law had ruled that the decision was solely down to the pilot.

Another important aspect was the observance of the collision regulations. Courts always considered these and took a dim view of actions that contravened the COLREGS or bye-laws. Sound signals and keeping a look out became important and arrangements such as “green to green” passing were frowned upon even though they may be common, accepted practice.

If a serious incident occurred then public opinion required an individual to be identified as responsible and self employed pilots could be affected by the new Corporate Manslaughter Act however, Kevin mentioned that no pilot had been successfully prosecuted for a criminal act since the early 19^th century but the “Cosco Busan” case in the USA did look as if it may set a precedent and pilots should be aware that important legal events in the USA inevitably became incorporated into English Law.

Q&A

Should a pilot report to the VTS if the Master has taken over the handling of the ship?

YES! Such a record could be vital should something go wrong.

Would Kevin consider that for employed pilots the CHA’s own cover was adequate and that the separate insurance taken out through the UKMPA was unnecessary?

Kevin was unaware of the cover provided by the UKMPA insurance but was of the opinion that such cover was advisable. Chairman Joe Wilson, made the point that in a case currently being made against a pilot on the Clyde, the UKMPA insurance was essential because the CHA was making a case against the pilot.