Perfect Visibility: Marine Pilots Receive Renewed Scrutiny

Published Dec 13, 2007 12:01 AM by The Maritime Executive

More than one month after the allision between the container ship Cosco Busan and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, I don’t see any value in playing Monday morning quarterback or making comments on the merits of that case. The situation goes well beyond a simple marine incident and involves the full review of response procedures and a host of other marine-related errors. The facts will come out soon enough and I’m reasonably certain that there is sufficient talent involved with the investigation and that, in the end, justice will be served and the proper "lessons learned" will be fully amplified for all to see.

At this early stage, just one thing is perfectly clear: the Cosco Busan allision will ultimately help to redefine the role of, and the liabilities facing marine pilots in the United States today. One of the most primary questions asked of any deck cadet at any maritime academy is: What is the role of the pilot? And, the answer, of course, is (c.), “the pilot provides guidance to, but is not in charge of the vessel.” That tenet has been upheld in many venues, for many, many years. In reality, however, the typical marine pilot who guides a vessel in from the sea buoy to the dock is in complete control of that vessel on the inbound leg. He or she better be, because often the captain of a particular vessel may have never transited that restricted waterway.

One of the key issues being brought to the forefront in the San Francisco case is whether the pilot should have taken the vessel in, given the conditions on board the vessel and the prevailing weather at the time. I did receive a note this week from one U.S.-based state pilot who told me in no uncertain terms, “If we waited for the fog to lift, we would never move and the shippers would be suing us for delaying their goods! The shippers want it both ways. When we take chances and keep moving their ships under less than ideal conditions, they don't thank us. When we make an error or worse, something happens beyond our control, they are all over us. There is a fine line between safety and a risk.”

Indeed, there is great risk involved with moving large vessels filled with millions of dollars of sometimes toxic cargoes. It is why state-licensed marine pilots, at least here in the United States, tend to get paid a lot of money. Pay for pilots can and does extend as much as $600,000 per year in some places, but in others, can be as low as $150,000 or so. Still, most of us would consider that a good living. And, probably the chief criticism of the piloting systems in use today in this country tends to center around the pay scales afforded these highly skilled marine professionals. But piloting a ship isn’t easy work. If it was, then everybody would be doing it.

The recent spate of criminal actions brought against mariners everywhere is old news. It is a reminder, however, that going to sea in 2007 is a far more complicated proposition today than it was just thirty years ago. In this regulatory climate, it is not surprising that so many mariners are choosing not to go to sea and that shipping companies are moaning about not only the lack of mariners, but also the lack of fully qualified professionals. And now, in the choppy wake of the Cosco Busan allision, it certainly appears that the legal focus on marine pilots will be ramped up considerably, as well.

This isn’t to suggest that we’re going to suddenly experience a shortage of state-licensed marine pilots. Far from it. There will always be a healthy supply of mariners seeking to reach for the brass ring and “make the bar.” Going forward, however, the consequences of doing so appear to be changing quickly. And anyone who previously thought that the risks associated with guiding large, deep-draft vessels in and out of port are not commensurate with the seemingly large pay scales, well, it is time to think again.

You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. A recent situation in the port of Boston is a perfect example. Faced with what was initially described as a “steering gear” deficiency on a large vessel looking to enter the port of Boston, the local pilots stipulated certain terms for that vessel’s entry, one of which was the use of the most versatile and modern tug in the harbor. Their reward for this prudent position? A letter from another company in the harbor requesting that the pilot be reprimanded for his actions and threatening additional legal action, if it happened again. And in a place (Massachusetts) where the Commonwealth continually battles the federal government over jurisdiction in marine safety matters, this particular disagreement is not yet settled.

Also in Massachusetts, there is a bill in play to license so-called “docking masters.” These individuals already provide guidance to vessels and tug boats during some docking and undocking maneuvers. Arguably, the job of ensuring a safe docking operation is as important as guiding the vessel in and out of port. And so, it is probably a great idea to codify their existence. The bill (s.1349) in play, however, also seeks to exclude these docking masters from the regulatory oversight, rate controls and other constraints which have been placed upon the local pilots for hundreds of years. If passed as proposed, the bill would create a two-tiered rate system which also provides for an unequal liability scheme. Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

Like it or not, increased liability and criminal penalties are coming for marine pilots -- docking masters, too. If this reality creates a safer environment, then that’s a good thing. But, it is a double-edged sword. Shippers can now expect longer delays for their cargoes in questionable circumstances because these marine professionals will become increasingly reluctant to take a chance in the name of expediency. Eventually, all of this affects the supply chain in one way or another.

Piloting is a tough job. And, it just got a lot harder. The previously foggy area of responsibility and liability for these professionals is quickly coming into sharper focus. But knee-jerk, band aid-type solutions such as the one proposed this week by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) aren’t going to solve anything. Her ridiculous bill -- put forth without any idea of how the system actually works -- would ensure that the Coast Guard has the authority to order ships to change speed or course in an emergency or during hazardous conditions. At this point -- and despite this isolated situation in San Francisco Bay -- I’ll put my faith in the pilot. And, I wonder who will be sitting behind the monitor of that RADAR screen at the VTS building. What qualifications will that individual bring to the risk equation and, perhaps more importantly, what will his or her liability be? - MarEx

Joseph Keefe is the Managing Editor of The Maritime Executive. He can be reached with comments or questions regarding this or ay other article in this e-newsletter at [email protected].