Ships Nostalgia banner

Pilotage Exemption Certificates

39K views 187 replies 42 participants last post by  Barrie Youde 
#1 · (Edited)
I was reading the July edition of the Nautilus Telegraph, there is an article regarding a Belgain RO-RO ship going sternfirst towards her berth and colliding with another ferry, Pride of Bruges,
The Master of the Belgian ferry did not have a pilotage exemption certificate, but another officer who was not apparently signed on the vessel did, hence the reason for going without a pilot, the Master thought the officer with the exemption should do the manoevering, the officer with the exemption did not have ship handling experience.
I held two pilotage exemptions, one for the River Thames as far as Dagenham, for which I filled in a form to prove that I had done sufficient trips up the Thame and that I could speak English, no examination or interview required. The other exemption for the River Humber was granted under similar cir***stances, although I did refuse to do my own pilotage when going to Old Harbour or other berths I was not familiar with. When I rejoined Everard's my Thames exemption was tranferred. The one for the Humber I had to go to VTS Humber to see their operations and go before the Harbour Master and senior pilot before it could be transferred as the ships were near the length for sitting the full pilots exam. I was asked various questions about navigation on the river, but nothing about my ship handling abilities or knowledge of various docks or berths. My last company before retiring we were expected to do our own pilotage wherever it was not compulsory including many foreign ports.
I would like to know the feelings of other members of the subject of own pilotage, especially members who are or have been engaged in the short sea trades.

:sweat: :sweat: :sweat:
 
See less See more
#3 ·
After a couple of years as Master of an FOC tanker (Gulf - Japan) I decided to take a holiday and went as Master of a 10,000 ton general cargo ship trading the South Pacific/Papua New Guinea for a year. During that year I obtained Pilotage Exemption Certificates for a couple of dozen ports. Then back to tankers for a year before returning and alternating tanker/cargo for the rest of my career.
My Exemptions were a nice addition to the CV and also a nice little earner as I used to charge (by agreement) 50% of the going pilotage rate.
The first time you swing a ship going alongside in Madang is a bit hair-raising, but others like Samarai and Kavieng are a doddle.
 
#14 · (Edited)
And what would your reaction be if the Pilot (usually a qualified Master) said I will take the ship to the next Port and only cfharge half as much as the Master?
Tony
That's his prerogative. If he wants to apply to an agency and offer his services at low rates there's nothing stopping him.

By the same token if I have a PEC and do the job for nothing presumably your response would be to offer your services as Master of my ship for nothing.
 
#5 ·
One of the problems I see with Pilotage Exemption Certificates is that they are so often abused. The holder does not exempt himself from his right to call for a Licensed Pilot (when it suits) therefore you have a situation where some Master's holding PECs may if they are not feeling up to it (words chosen carefully) call a Pilot.
 
#6 ·
Very true Bill, but if a PEC holder wants a Pilot in a lot of wind or bad visibility the reply is "If its too windy/too bad visibility for you Sir, then it is for me also."

Also when renewing PEC's Port Authorities take into account if a PEC holder has requested a Pilot. Also from the Pilots point of view it leads to all sorts of problems when you have a schedule all worked out and Pilots running round
like blue a**** flies keeping the programme going and out of the blue a PEC holder suddenly wants a Pilot. I know you would not have been too pleased if your ship was delayed while they "Shook the tree" for another Pilot.

Regards, Tony
 
#8 ·
Tony and Bill
I can see Tony's point from the perspective of a retired pilot. As I said in my starting this thread I held two PECs. Most of the ships I was master on carried only one mate, if you had a mate that you could not trust with some of the pilotage it could mean 12 hours on the bridge after a 6 hour watch. I addmit that very often when approaching a river berth my mind was more on getting some rest rather than the job in hand. In the Humber I alternated between taking a pilot and doing my own, trying to keep both sides happy. I got to know a lot of Humber pilots and they a great bunch who did understand the pressure from the paper clip counters in the company's office.
The last company before I retired I gave an ETA for Liverpool Bar pilot station, I was reminded twice the ship was not compulsory pilotage,as I was going to a dock on the Mersey I had never been before I insisted on a pilot, I was then warned that I could be replaced. I still took a pilot. The point in starting the thread was really trying to say albeit badly that it should always at masters discertion and that no master should be pressurised.
Robert
 
#9 ·
Robert,
I do not have a coastal background but I do understand your argument. I have always been amazed how these coastal companies get away with running ships on 6 on and 6 off. I spoke with one Shipmaster recently who works for an Irish coastal outfit (green hull) and he Pilots the vessel right up the Manchester Ship Canal from the Bar. I imagine that ETA at the Bar would have to coincide with him just arriving on watch. In truth that is probably not the case. OK for young men I suppose.

Bill
 
#10 ·
Bill
Even young men get tired. I believe the reason a lot of this does not come to light is the fact that when there is an accident it is as a rule put down to crew negligence. From personal experience, as well as crew cutting the other problem comes from untrained third world crewing. While master of the small tanker I have posted in the galleries, we sometimes had to manoeuvre into an inside berth on the Thames. Itmeant passing a dolphin from another berth and leaving just enough room before turnig in at a shallow angle, so you were actually having to steer, when realistically you need to be on the bridge wing. I count myself lucky that I never done serious damage,because as well as this I have been absolutly tired from long spells on the bridge as well as quick turnarounds. I have always advocated it should always be up to the master as to whether he take a pilot and not someone sitting in an office who has never had experience as to what it entails.
Regards Robert
 
#12 · (Edited)
hi robert

i certainly agree that it is entirely up to the old man, if on a non compulsory ship or holding a pec for that ship, to be the sole judge of whether he takes a pilot or not.
however one person on the bridge of a tanker on an approach manoeuvre in a tight situation really is fraught with danger, i would think most harbour masters would take a very dim view of that if they knew it was happening within their limits.
 
#16 ·
Click HERE if you wish to see what one PEC holder was responsible for. I never ever witnessed such reckless, irresponsible, unseamanlike behaviour. To come crashing into a ship at about 10 knots, with both anchors in the hause and then immediately back out of the bloody great hole you,ve just created, allowing No.2 hold to fill in seconds, should to my mind be a gaoling offence. No need to ask me how I feel about those P.O.C. (Pilots of Convenience).
 
#19 · (Edited)
Click HERE if you wish to see what one PEC holder was responsible for. I never ever witnessed such reckless, irresponsible, unseamanlike behaviour .... no need to ask me how I feel about those P.O.C. (Pilots of Convenience).
Without being picky .... I note that the vessel you were piloting was agreed (presumably by the underwriters) to be 33% responsible for the collision.

Now I know that a commercial decision may not truly reflect what happened but more the realities of costs if it goes to Court/Arbitration, but 33% is more than I'd expect from a blameless happenstance.

As for 10.8 kts average in dense fog ....... (Thumb) .... wunderbar .... memories leap up of Capt Carney, "MV Glenogle", January 1963, Rotterdam to London, pea soup fog, 21 kts, Decca 606TM radar, a middy was coasting his time out and was the only one who knew how to work it ....

As a "Pilot of Convenience" of 30 years experience I never damaged a ship (either my own or anyone else's) in any way and never ****ted a wharf either.

However, having blown my trumpet, I must say that I'd NEVER navigate/berth in European close waters without a pilot or several years experience under my belt.

My worst PEC's were running the Great Barrier Reef without a pilot. That can be white knuckle stuff when both the 20 year old radar and gyro fall over and the Patagonian Uncertificated 3rd Mate panics .... but it's all part of life's rich tapestry of an FOC ShipMaster.
 
#21 ·
There are many instances where the Masters of vessels running to berths on a regular basis would be far more familiar with conditions at a given berth/location than the local pilots. The Irish coasters with green hulls would be a great example - for a long while they were virtually the only vessels running up to Manchester and as they were not taking pilots, how did the pilots get experience ?
 
#22 ·
The question must be asked; how can an exemption certificate be issued to a man with limited ship handling experience?
Surely the certificate is not issued without proof that the candidate is familiar with, and competent in that particular pilotage area, and has experience of handling a ship in that area.
Pat
 
#23 ·
By definition:
PECs are issued to regular runners to the port in question. It follows that these vessels will be of the smaller variety where the Master's ship handling skills are not in question and may match or better that of a pilot for that port. The arguement here I think, in the principle in PECs and the abuse thereof.

Brian
 
#24 ·
The reason I asked was because I knew a master on one of the big Ro Ro ferries running between Dublin and Liverpool. he had to have a pilot on board until the pilotage authority was satisfied he could do the job.
Pat
 
#25 ·
familiarisation trips

hi pat
this is quite usual, the roro ships and other regular runners to the tees, who were within compulsory pilotage parameters, had to do a number of trips in and out with a pilot, then have an examination on their knowledge of the river from sea to the berth.
the reason for training of pilots and all these other, seemingly, often aggravating regulations is so that the port amd private berth owners have a measure of protection from possible damage to their assets
 
#26 ·
Gents,
several worms escaping from this can but I think we are missing the point of Roberts initial post.

1) The A N Other with PEC engaged to do the pilotage should not have been issued with a PEC for a vessel that he was not familiar with.

2) I cannot possibly see how this PEC holder was 'Bona fide' as per 1987 pilotage act.

3) Who issued him with the PEC?

regards
Dave
 
#27 ·
The collision between the Ursine and the Pride of Brugge is interesting in that the Captain of a ferry (I hesitate to use the term Master) had no ship handling experience. The Ursine had ben under the command of highly experienced British Master's until shortly before this incident, but they were replaced in a cost cutting exercise.
This minor fact was conveniently overlooked in the MCA investigation.
 
#28 ·
Regarding the issue of Pilotage Exemption Certificates - most ports, such as the Thames and the Humber require an examination and an assessment before an exemption certificate can be issued. The exemption holder is then re-assessed every five years. These examinations are not 'rubber stamp' jobs and require a good knowledge of the area in order to pass. Ships that are below the length above which a Pilot is compulsary (self takers) are not required to possess an exemption.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top