[Hugh Ferguson]

Hamish, You are a devil!

[Barrie Youde]

#275

As usual, the devil lies in the detail. The only proper explanation could be that the qualification held by the masters of the AHL railway ships was a Pilotage Exemption Certificate and not a pilot's licence. To prolongue the pedantry even further, since 1988 a pilot's licence has been re-named an "authorisation".

[Barrie Youde]

#274

Lakercapt,

My apologies and thanks!

BY

[Hamish Mackintosh]

Originally Posted by Barrie Youde

#275

As usual, the devil lies in the detail. The only proper explanation could be that the qualification held by the masters of the AHL railway ships was a Pilotage Exemption Certificate and not a pilot's licence. To prolongue the pedantry even further, since 1988 a pilot's licence has been re-named an "authorisation".

Yes that would make sense ,I don't know what qualifications these masters had, but would guess it would be a"pilotage exemption" as they only worked within the Railway company

[Barrie Youde]

Thanks, Hamish,

Am beginning to lose sight of what makes sense and what does not make sense in this thread!

[Waighty]

Originally Posted by Jeff Egan

When I was at sea it was always TMO&PA in the bridge log book when entering moving or leaving port with a Pilot onboard but what about the law? In my Pilotage district once it became compulsory in 1988 any merchant ship over 50 metres in length had to have onboard a Pilot or a Pilot exemption certificate holder while moving, sailing or arriving. The exemption holder had to be a member of the ships crew but not necessarily the Master. In fact while in the pilotage district there was no particular requirement for the master to be onboard at all, but the Pilot or exemption holder was compulsory. If there is no Master onboard who do I advise?

In Bank Line it was "CVTMO&PA" courses various etc.....

[Waighty]

For an interesting case re Pilot and Master see the Bank Line sub-forum "Forthbank Collision with Van Brienoord Bridge"; all the posts are interesting but particularly #10 and #23 by "Phillti", he was on board at the time.

[Hugh Ferguson]

The following could have been useful as a contribution to this subject: they are judgements by eminent judges in sundry court cases.

Judge Sir J. Hannen said:- "I think that if there was such a state of obscurity owing to fog as would give rise to a plain prospect of danger, the master could not in those circumstances throw the whole responsibility on the pilot, if he ordered the vessel to get underway......though it might be the duty of the master to make suggestions to the pilot from time to time, it rests with the pilot to form his own opinion as to the value of the suggestions. It is only when the captain actually gives an order contrary to the pilot that he takes responsibility for a manouvre on himself."

(More case histories to follow).

[Hugh Ferguson]

And another, this from Judge Lord Kinnear:-

"I think it falls to the pilot and not the master to say when it is prudent to leave the dock and enter the river. I cannot assent to the proposition that it is the master who is responsible for getting the ship under way and that the pilot was responsible for the navigation only after she had begun to move through the water.. There could be no divided authority in a matter so vital to her safety. Where all the circumstances which make an operation hazardous are purely local conditions, the pilot, is in law, the proper judge, and is, in fact, a far more competent judge than any master could be."

[Michal-S]

Originally Posted by Waighty

In Bank Line it was "CVTMO&PA" courses various etc.....

I would rather write: "Entering/leaving (name of a port) with pilot on board".

[Hugh Ferguson]

And another, each time bearing in mind that every such court ruling may be used to determine the outcome of similar events in future cases.

Judge, Sir J. Nicoll said, "The collision ocurred from the vessel going on in the fog, not from any act of bad steerage, want of knowledge of shoals, of any incapacity as pilot, but from proceeding at all. It seems to be nearly admitted that if the vessel had set off in this fog, blame would have been imputable to the master; if so, was he not blamable in going on in the fog, had he not a right to resume his authority? Did he not owe it to his owners and to other persons whose property might be damaged by a collision, to insist upon bringing the vessel up? In this case, apparently, it was not decided expressly, but it can hardly be doubted that the continuance underway in a fog is within the province of the pilot to determine; probably, however, if the fog was such as that no reasonable man would remain under way, the master of the ship would also be held in fault."

[Hugh Ferguson]

This from Judge Lushington:-

"It would be a most dangerous doctrine to hold forth, considering the duties imposed on pilots and the experience and local knowledge they are supposed to possess, if I were to sanction the interference of a master in any way in the performance of those duties which the pilot must be considered peculiarly competent to discharge, and of which the master, in the majority of cases, must be a very inferior judge.........if the pilot was utterly incompetent to the proper discharge of his duties, it would clearly be incumbent upon the master to interfere for the protection of lives and the property on board his vessel. Such however, would be a case of extreme necessity."

[Hugh Ferguson]

And this, the final one, from Mr Justice Butt:-

"The pilot is the judge in nearly all matters connected with the navigation of a ship, and unless he misjudges them and acts upon a palpably false and wrong judgement, such as to make it manifest to a reasonable man that it ought not to be allowed, then the captain has no right to interfere with the pilot at all; and as to his interfering with the pilot at the very last moment when two ships are just coming together, it would be a very dangerous thing to do to encourage the notion that at the moment when a collision was almost, if not actually, inevitable, the captain ought to interfere, except by suggestion."

[jmbrent]

Here in Freeport pilotage is compulsory but they take no responsibility for any damages done to vessels or piers or wharfs, they just leave the vessel to sort out the problems. There have been quite a number the LNG carrier Hispania Spirit while berthing at GB shipyard contacted with a dolphin and ripped open a diesel oil storage tank spuing 150 tons into the pristine water of the harbour. A cruise liner the MSC Poesisa grounded on a reef while anchoring off Port Lucaya and was stuck for 10 hours. the most recent was the Grand Legacy a car transporter which contacted the jetty putting a 2 metre gash in the side. The pilots just walked away.

[Hugh Ferguson]

I can better that! One of my pilot colleagues whilst taking a ship out of the Granville Dock, Dover, just happened to nudge the Dover Harbour Authority's office building. He was unaware of having made any contact but the building was very rapidly exited by all of the office staff and was soon condemned as unsafe, demolished and rebuilt to the joy of all employed there-in.
But the best job was executed by another of my colleagues when, in taking extreme evasive action to avoid a collision, brought down and set on fire the brand new £10,000,000 Coryton deep water jetty.
Neither pilot was penalised in any way, nor should they have been.

[noboa]

The killer-question from pandi and other shipping-industry voices: "Tell me, why do all these incidents happen WHEN A PILOT IS ON BOARD?"

[John Briggs]

Originally Posted by Hugh Ferguson

Neither pilot was penalised in any way, nor should they have been.

Yes, but what about the Masters Hugh?

[chadburn]

John, it would appear that Master's do not have a Teflon coating.

[Barrie Youde]

#291

For the same reason that water is wet and land is dry!

[Hugh Ferguson]

Originally Posted by John Briggs

Yes, but what about the Masters Hugh?

He always has the option of over-riding the pilot or, as on only one occasion that I personally recall- whilst sitting on 15,000 tons of petrol in fog- the master said to me he would like to anchor, I immediately complied.
He happened to be a regular into the Thames from Fawley refinery but had never, nor had any of those ESSO tanker masters, taken out a licence.
Grounding was taken seriously and always resulted in a suspension of licence (3 months if I remember correctly) collision with berth or vessel was regarded as par for the course-only to be accepted as a part of the job and therefore, on occasion, inevitable.
Several of the pilots in my branch of the service lost their licences and consequently, their entire income at the stroke of a pen: now, they can even go to gaol, especially if oil pollution is a factor.
What happens to masters I have no idea: if you started worrying about that you would never have gone in for piloting.

I hear this lament so often! How can anyone, know or learn, what happens to a pilot after an accident?
As I've stated before, the master's position is invidious, he's damned if he does and he's damned if he don't.

[Barrie Youde]

On 10th July, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport issued a Press Notice inviting submissions of evidence on matters affecting pilotage.

Please see Google.

[pilot]

Originally Posted by Hugh Ferguson

What happens to masters I have no idea: if you started worrying about that you would never have gone in for piloting.

Or conversely if you started worrying about that could be a reason for going in for piloting?

[Barrie Youde]

A shipmaster who is beset with worry is unlikely to make a good pilot.

For that matter, nobody who is beset with worry is likely to make a good pilot.

[Hugh Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Hugh Ferguson

True enough! One of my contemporaries, under the influence, was actually prevented by a colleague from boarding a tanker and as a consequence, lost his licence. That was the end of his piloting career. No de-toxing in those days, and no second chance: a married man with family and like a bolt from the blue, no job, no income.
Pilots don't get punished! Tell that to the marines!

Just one example gainsaying the myth that pilots can walk away from a mishap-this pilot didn't even get aboard the ship he was stood off for!

[pilot]

Originally Posted by Barrie Youde

A shipmaster who is beset with worry is unlikely to make a good pilot.

I was thinking more along the lines of the many hours a Master spends today on clerical duties and other marginally productive tasks. Piloting being an escape from a world of mundane, and in many cases trivia that seems to be the norm in many Companies today. All serving to increase the work load on ships' staff. Berthing a tanker who's the delights of a vetting inspection awaiting him, the stress levels can be very apparent among the bridge team who's major concern may seem to be filling in forms and collecting signatures. Detracting from monitoring the operation in hand in some instances.

Not that Piloting should be exciting but at least the nuts and bolts of the job are the essentials without too many add ons, (yet!) With job satisfaction still achievable and minimum paperwork.