Master / Pilot Exchange: Dr Katherine Devitt

December 26th, 2013 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Technical and Training | 1 Comment »

It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it!

 

As the elements (such as those detailed by Nigel Allen in this article) involved in a pilotage passage become more complex, the importance of an effective and on-going dialogue between Pilot and Master MPX) during the passage cannot be over-emphasised. Dr Devitt’s following research summary highlights the key factors. (JCB) 

The vast majority of pilots take pride in doing a good job. But what constitutes a good job? Ultimately it must be to do with the safe navigation of the ship, but is it only about good seamanship?

Warsash Maritime Academy sponsored me to explore the effectiveness of the Master-pilot exchange (MPX), and the relationship embedded within it. I was interested in the non-technical skills required to be an effective pilot since my view would be that technical and non-technical skills must be interwoven together for the most successful outcome.

Interviews were carried out in the ports of Bristol, Medway and Southampton with thirteen pilots and nine Masters, and what emerged were some clear trends about what contributed to effective and ineffective Master-pilot relationships.

Failure to ask for, or provide relevant information

The 2008 MAIB report on the Sichem Melbourne incident noted that:

“The accident was primarily caused by a failure to exchange an appropriate level of information between the master and pilot before departure from the berth. Assumptions were made by both parties of the other’s intentions.”

• Failure to exchange information by parties involved may be caused by a number of factors such as:
• Lack of understanding
• Assumptions made and not checked
• Distraction with other matters.
• Commercial considerations
• Personality characteristics  (such as “I know better than he does”)
• Fatigue and stress

One of the factors emerging from the research was the importance of honesty about any equipment defects, and timeliness in providing that information. One pilot recalled ruefully that he had learnt early in his piloting career that he needed to be very specific in probing for defects, having initially asked whether the vessel had a bow thruster and been told it had. What he was not told at the time, and discovered later, was that it wasn’t working. Now when he receives an affirmative response to his enquiry about the presence of a bow thruster, he follows through with the question, “And is it working, and to what capacity?” This failure to inform can often be linked back to commercial considerations  since the loss of a bow thruster might result in the need for a tug with its resultant costs.

Another pilot told of a Master who, having requested that he berth the vessel, was approaching the berth too fast – it was only after pilot intervention and the safe berthing of the vessel that the Master admitted he had never berthed that vessel before.

 Overload of information

Although the MPX should be a continual process, too much information given at inappropriate times will defeat the goal of an MPX – to acquire the understanding necessary to take the right actions during the act of pilotage in order to make a safe transit.

Several pilots spoke of not being given enough time to familiarise themselves with the vessel before a pilot card was thrust under their noses, or to acclimatise themselves from having entered a darkened bridge from a brightly lit alleyway.

The importance of drip-feeding information was seen as very important. Interestingly, some Masters interpret too much information-giving as indicating less experienced pilots.

 Failure to adapt to other cultures and languages

One of the main problems impeding understanding is the skill level of spoken English, and all the pilots interviewed highlighted communication problems with various nationalities. Problems were also identified where the bridge team were talking in their own language and the pilot was aware that there were issues about the ship that were not being communicated to him. The importance of non-verbal skills for the pilot cannot be under-estimated, whether that be checking that someone really does understand or is uncomfortable challenging the pilot.

Just because a pilot’s native language is English does not mean that he is understandable to a foreign crew. Regional accents can cause a real problem, as can speaking too quickly. One Master highlighted difficulty in understanding a Scottish pilot with a broad accent, “For ten minutes, he tries to speak English and then blah, blah, blah, I understand nothing… he’s a very good pilot, he’s very nice, he tries to explain everything very good, but he don’t speak English!”

Some pilots explained that they would vary their communication style depending on whether they thought they needed to be more directive, or friendlier. There can be a danger of stereotyping here, but Eastern Europeans appeared to fall into the first category, and Filipinos into the second.

The conclusion that emerged was that in an increasingly multicultural industry, the ability of a pilot to interact successfully with different cultures, nationalities and linguistic abilities is increasingly important.  They also need to assess the speed, quantity and specificity of information exchange, to gather non-verbal indicators in order to check for understanding or loss of concentration, and to adjust their interaction style in order to get the best out of the Master-pilot relationship and these are fundamental to an effective MPX.

Failure to establish trust and rapport

The European Maritime Pilots’ Association (EMPA) observe : “The master and pilot relationship is an intriguing balance of mutual trust and respect, largely unwritten, which provides an unrivalled level of safety in a society that expects, and receives, the highest of standards from the shipping industry.” 

The amount of time generally taken by the act of pilotage is only a matter of hours – not long – especially when there are a number of factors that can influence that trust. These include prior experience, perceived competence, interpersonal skills, and the ability to adapt according to the situation on board and the personalities involved. If the Master and pilot have successfully worked together previously, trust is likely to be already established. If the Master is not a regular runner to the port, or has had a poor experience with pilotage, this will colour the extent to which he trusts the pilot.

How a Master determines pilot competence is often based on a gut feeling about whether he feels the pilot knows what he is doing. His assessment may include how much pertinent information the pilot gives and requests, whether he appears prepared with a plan, whether he communicates regularly and explains what he is doing, the quality of his ship handling, whether he “takes care of the ship” and is operating safely using a safe speed of approach. Masters also assess how relaxed and confident the pilot appears to be, as well as his appearance –the wearing of uniform was seen as evidence of professionalism. Several Masters mentioned the importance of a pre-printed passage plan with plenty of visual information (such as chartlets, an overview of the pilotage area etc.) such as that used in Southampton, as an indicator of whether they would have confidence in the pilot being properly prepared.

 

Creating rapport was seen as an essential skill in working effectively as a pilot, some saying that the relationship built with the Master
was the most important part of the act of pilotage as it allowed them both to work together effectively
with the bridge team. This was confirmed by many of the Masters interviewed.  Failure to build relationships appeared to diminish some Masters’ trust in their pilot.
Some Masters recognised that they, too, had a part to play in good relationships – one said if he was grumpy, this might raise the pilot’s grumpiness and affect bringing the ship safely alongside.

As well as showing an interest in the Master and bridge team in a sociable and friendly way, “small talk” about sport or the Master’s home country, pilots emphasised the importance of joking and banter in putting the Master and bridge team at ease, relieving tension and establishing trust. Masters also recognised the importance of small talk and banter, though it was clear that in certain circumstances, such as being fatigued or carrying out complex manoeuvres, this would not be appropriate. Mutual respect and valuing was important to all the interviewees, whether it was pilots needing to recognise a Master’s expertise and ship knowledge, or Masters demonstrating that they valued their pilot. Several pilots mentioned the importance of handshakes, a welcoming smile, whether a cup of coffee is offered.

Monitoring and challenging

All Masters interviewed said that they, or their bridge team, always monitor the pilot. Interestingly, this was not the view of the pilots, though this does vary depending on the size and type of vessel. It is possible that more assertive pilot monitoring takes place where the Master is also the owner of the vessel, especially if they believe there is no need to take on a pilot.

It isn’t clear why there is a deviation in views. It could be that where vessels are regular runners into the port, a relationship of trust has already been built between Master and pilot, and therefore less monitoring is deemed to be necessary. Another assumption might be that no Master would be willing to say he did not monitor during the act of pilotage, either personally or vicariously through the bridge team. There might also be a difference in perception around what monitoring actually entails. Is monitoring watching for deviations by exception? Is it to do with the amount of questions an interested Master or bridge watchkeeper might raise? Is there a correlation between the lack of active engagement and a power distance culture where pilots – seen as the experts in their role – would not be challenged as a matter of respect for their seniority and role expertise? It’s worth researching further.

 Failure to recognise fatigue and stress

Fatigue and stress can impact on both the technical and the non-technical aspects of pilotage. The ability of both Master and pilot to assess each other’s level of fatigue and stress is important due to the impact of these factors on MPX effectiveness. This is often through body language and non-verbal communication: speed of speech, high pitch of voice, excessive movement on the bridge or lack of it, shouting at the helmsman or engine room personnel, lack of acknowledgement of situational awareness, questions being repeated frequently, asking for excessive amounts of detail, yawning, “twitchiness”, and grumpiness/shortness of temper and insensitivity.

Pilots were also aware of their own susceptibility to fatigue and stress.  There were differing reasons for feeling stressed on board, which ranged from orders not being followed and relevant preparations not being made for arrival in port through to constant “wittering” of the Master and bridge team. The journey out on the pilot boat can take its toll if the weather is bad. Sometimes, jobs take longer than others due to waiting for a berth, or fog, or the delayed arrival of a vessel. Sharpness and awareness also diminish so that course alterations are made too early or too late. It was summed up by a pilot, who said, “If I’m tired I know I’m probably going to be a little bit below par, and also if it’s the early hours of the morning … if I know it’s going to be a difficult ship and I’m a little bit tired and it’s in the middle of the night, I would say I’m not going to be as competent as if it was daytime and an easier ship.”

What has emerged from this study is the importance of non-technical skills, and in particular, self-awareness of one’s own personality and style, the ability to use non-verbal communications to maximum effect, and adapting communication approaches to suit the situation and the individual being communicated with. These skills form the foundation of creating rapport and trust, and will contribute to a safe transit – something any pilot and Master would surely want.

Dr Katherine Devitt : Recently retired Senior Lecturer, Warsash Maritime Academy

This commentary above is summarised from a much larger research report. If you would like a copy, please contact the author at
Katherine.devitt@ntlworld.com.