MarEx Mailbag: Reader Response to Last Week's Editorial and More!
MarEx reader weighs in on our 3 April editorial entitled, "Spelling Out the Maritime Manpower Solution: S.O.C.P." You can read that editorial by clicking: HERE. Also: additional responses to the previous week's editorial entitled, "Uncharted Waters: Criminalizing the COSCO BUSAN allision" came in. That piece talked about the inevitable changes in liability that look to be coming down the road, why and more importantly, what that means for maritime commerce. You can read the COSCO BUSAN editorial by clicking HERE. Read on to see what MarEx readers had to say on both subjects:
Joe,
I was surprised to see that the most obvious cause/solution to the mythical 'manpower shortage' wasn't touched upon in your article. There is no worldwide maritime manpower shortage. There is a shortage of manpower willing to work for the wages/conditions offered in today's maritime industry. There is increased time and effort required to stay current that is seldom reimbursed. There are fees that were never before required and since increased. As an aside, speaking to a USCG officer several years back when the fees were first introduced, I was surprised to learn that it cost more money to collect and process the fees for licenses, etc. than the money actually collected. Eroding wages have not kept up with the cost of living and inflation. Going to sea used to be made worthwhile by the pay differential from shore jobs. That is a thing of the past. Cadets on my last ship spoke of jobs that they were being recruited for where the starting wages were nearly what I make in a typical 4-6 month 'year' at sea. And don't be fooled by the idea that the new containerized shipping is so much easier than the old ships. Ships are seldom in port more than 24 hours and sleep is often more important than going ashore. I've often heard shipping described as being like "prison, with opportunities for drowning!" I'm curious to see if there are any other seagoing types out there with similar thoughts on the subject.
Steve Meyers
MarEx Editor's Remarks: A lot of good points here. In 1980, fresh out of Mass. Maritime and with only 5 months of sea time, I made about $49,000 as Third Mate working for the Military Sealift Command. Today, they tout starting salaries of $65,000 or more and while that sounds pretty good, I bought a top-of-the-line Tamaya Sextant that year (1980) for about $1,100. Can anyone tell me what that instrument costs today? The cost of living had doubled since then and I still contend that salaries at sea have not kept pace. Don't get me wrong: $150,000 to sail as Master of a state-of-the-art LNG carrier is a good living, as opposed to the 1943-era tanker, held together by spit, glue and a couple of coat hangers. A couple of years later, I was making about $57,000 annually as a second Mate on a UNOCAL chemical tanker that had a wringer washer (and I am not making this up -- and I also know there are several readers who don't know what a wringer washer is) in the officer's laundry. So, who is better off? The jury is still out. Read on to see what other MarEx readers thought about our COSCO BUSAN editorial
that matters most
Get the latest maritime news delivered to your inbox daily.
Dear Joseph,
With reference to your editorial re the status of the pilot I have been interested to read the various responses submitted to date.
Here in the UK there is increasing concern over how P&I Clubs and investigators are referring to pilots as "advisors" which gives the impression that the pilot's role is to go on board a ship and monitor the ship's bridge team executing the ship's berth to berth passage plan.
Pilots of course know this to be nonsense but to outsiders, who visualise every bridge to be equipped with the latest navigational equipment and manned by a highly trained bridge team fully integrated into the systems, it is inevitably how we are perceived. This misconception, in turn, naturally leads to questions as to why on earth we are there at all!
Within the UK, the status of the pilot has been defined by law which establishes that a pilot is far more than a mere advisor. The following is an extract of a legal opinion provided to UK pilots regarding status:
UK Statute law defines a pilot as "any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct thereof": (Section 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894). The interpretation provisions of the Pilotage Act 1987 specifically prescribe this definition (Section 3L) and the important phrase is "has the conduct thereof".
Historically in the UK the judges have left no doubt that the pilot is in charge of the ship's navigation, not the master and the following court cases confirm this.
"The Tactician"(1907)
In this case the judge considered the meaning of the word "conduct". And stated: "it is a cardinal principle that the Pilot is in sole charge of the ship, and that all directions as to speed, course, stopping, and reversing, and everything of that land, are for the Pilot".
The Mickleham (1918) case also considered the meaning of the word "conduct" and again the judge concluded that if a ship is to be conducted by a pilot it "does not mean that she is to be navigated under his advice: it means that she must be conducted by him".
Another case Babbs V Press (1971) examined the pilot’s status should a Master decide to take over the conduct of the vessel from him and the judge decided that "a pilot can only act in such a capacity when he personally has the conduct of the ship, i.e. the control of its navigation and handling. Hence if the Master supersedes the Pilot for whatever reason the Pilot ceases to be a pilot and is not responsible for the actions of the Master."
This aspect of the Master relieving the pilot of conduct also requires legal clarification because although by statute the Pilot has the conduct, under common law, the Master may still intervene to express his misgivings as to the wisdom of the Pilot's proposed course of action, and in a situation of immediate peril he is entitled to take the navigation out of the hands of the Pilot provided he can show justification. Therefore, if there is any implication to be read into the written law of pilotage, it is the simple and natural rule that pilots should generally be trusted to exercise the qualifications granted to them; and that intervention by the shipmaster should only happen if and when trust in the pilot has broken down. As to whether a pilot should report by VHF to the CHA whenever a shipmaster supersedes him, it is entirely proper that he should do so; and it might well be a sensible precaution.
John Clandillon-Baker
Editor: The Pilot: www.pilotmag.co.uk
MarEx Editor's remarks: Good stuff. A different, but well-schooled opinion. Read on.
To Marine Exchange Mail Bag:
Re: COSCO BUSAN
There sure seems to be some recent changes in the Laws governing who is responsible for the safe navigation of a seagoing vessel when navigating in inland waters with a "Required Pilot aboard."
I graduated from the California Maritime Academy in December 1943, and then sailed almost constantly until I retired in 1994. I sailed for sixteen years (three as Master) with American President lines, then as a Panama Canal Pilot for Six years, than as Master for Sea Train and Matson Navigation Co. For the next 28 years. I also retired as a Captain in the US Naval Reserve, which included two active duty tours teaching ship handling to prospective Naval Aircraft Carrier Captains. I also hold a USCG License as Pilot for San Francisco Bay, Honolulu, and Guam. I retired as Commodore of the Fleet, Matson Navigation Co.
The position of a pilot aboard any vessel in US inland waters was always very clearly defined as
"As an adviser to the Master with local knowledge." He was normally given the con of the vessel; his orders, acquiesced by the Master, were given directly to the bridge team. There was never any question that the Master was in complete command of the navigation of the vessel. The Master not only has the authority to override the Pilots Orders, but in the case of endangerment to the vessel, and the safe Navigation of the vessel, he is required to do so, and would be held at fault if he did not do so.
The only place to my knowledge where the Master is relived of the Navigational Control of the Vessel was the Panama Canal, where the Canal company assumed full responsibility for the safe transit of the vessel and assumed all liability for the Navigation of the vessel, not related to the failure of the vessels equipment.
No information has been made public as to what caused the erratic course changes of the COSCO BUSON. I am also at a loss as to why all SF Bay pilots do not carry a laptop computer that would display the "AIS" Data, or at least a portable GPS. I could safely navigate my automobile through the Bay with the small GPS that can tell me which lane of the highway that I am driving in.
Captain K. R. Orcutt
MarEx Editor's Remarks: Captain Orcutt's comments seem to back up what I always thought to be true. But, others disagree. Here's an assignment for MarEx readers: What does the Coast Guard say in their testing questions? Who is in charge? Who is an advisor? What's the official party line at Coast Guard HQ? Inquiring minds want to know.
Link to newsletter article: http://www.newsletterscience.com/marex/readmore.cgi?issue_id=293&article_id=3096
Link to newsletter archive: http://www.newsletterscience.com/marex/archive_view.cgi?issue_id=293