As the North P&I Club informs, it is well known that in most places around the world the presence of pilot on the bridge does not relieve the Master or officer in charge of the watch from their duties or obligations for the safety of the ship. However, there are many cases where the Master appears to relinquish control to the pilot or fails to challenge a possible unsafe instruction, sometimes leading to an incident.
According to Dimitra Capas (Solicitor), North P&I Club, and John Southam (Executive (Loss Prevention), North P&I Club, if the pilot informs the Master to perform a manoeuvre that results in an incident, will that prevent the Master being responsible? Almost certainly not, as ship management and navigation in most cases remain the responsibility of the Master.
This is showcased by lines 170 and 171 of the New York Produce which reads:
The owners to remain responsible for the navigation of the vessel … same as when trading for their own account
For example, in the un-safe berth case The Stork, one of the issues was if the Master acted reasonably when following pilot’s advice on anchoring, in spite of the fact that the Master had issues with the instruction. The court said that pilots possess intimate local knowledge and concluded that the master cannot transfer his responsibility to the pilot, but a master would be very imprudent if in a place of this sort he disregarded the advice of those with local knowledge unless he had very good reason to do so.
This practically means that the Master, along with the bridge team, must assess any instruction given by the pilot to ensure that if the pilot’s instruction is carried out, the ship will be safe.
[smlsubform prepend=”GET THE SAFETY4SEA IN YOUR INBOX!” showname=false emailtxt=”” emailholder=”Enter your email address” showsubmit=true submittxt=”Submit” jsthanks=false thankyou=”Thank you for subscribing to our mailing list”]
Another common misconception is that the pilot’s suggestion constitutes an employment order which allows an owner to hold the charterer responsible or be indemnified. Justice Staughton was clear in The Erechthion that while the orders of a harbour master to continue to an anchorage were employment orders, the pilot’s suggestion as to where the vessel must anchor was a matter of navigation so the ultimate responsibility lies with Master. Despite the fact that the charterer may pay for the pilot, this does not make the pilot the charterer’s servant. In addition, this also does not mean that the charterer will be responsible to the owner for the pilot’s negligence.
However, disagreeing with a pilot is easier said than done. According to North Club, commercial pressure often makes ignoring the pilot’s instructions very difficult. Masters are only too aware of the commercial consequences of missing a schedule or creating delays. Nevertheless, it is very important that this is not an overriding factor in the Master’s decision.
If the Master decides not to follow a pilot’s instruction, and this leads to a delay or extra expenditure, a dispute will most likely follow. But if the Master does not follow the instruction and this leads to an incident, again a dispute will follow.
What is more, SOLAS Chapter V regulation 34-1 states that:
The owner, the charterer, the company operating the ship, or any other person SHALL NOT prevent or restrict the master of the ship from taking or executing any decision which, in the master’s professional judgement, is necessary for the safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment
Furthermore, Ms. Capas and Mr. Southam , note that SOLAS chapter V is one of the best tools at a Master’s disposal, if they want to ensure that they will remain in command and make a reasonable choice based on safety alone.
It is also crucial that the Master gains relevant evidence to prove that the choice not to follow the pilot’s instructions was reasonable. This can include:
- Risk assessments;
- Tidal data;
- Charts;
- Passage plans;
- Navigation warnings;
- Echo sounder records;
- VDR data;
- Statements;
- Photographs;
- Checklists;
- Master pilot exchanges;
- The bridge logbook entries.
In the most part, courts will sympathise with a Master who has considered the safety of his crew and the vessel and acted reasonably, despite a delay or additional expenditure. On the other hand, if the Master follows the pilot’s instruction without thinking fully of the safety factors, and an incident takes place, then SOLAS Chapter V will work against the Master.
This is a very contentious area of law. Even in your own article you refer to both pilots advice and then pilots instruction? Which is it? The laws in each country and even each state surrounding pilotage vary significantly.
As a pilot, I am criminally liable for my actions, but have no civil liability. Once onboard I give instructions and expect them to be followed, I am certainly not giving advice. I pilot large ships in very narrow channel and port with 4 tugs attached, the reality is that the Master does not have the experience or ability to override me, however I provide him with measurable outcomes to allow them to at least challenge me if I make an error. I am well aware that if I put a ship alongside heavily and do some damage the poor master will have days or weeks of headache and might lose his job.
As a former deck officer and shipmaster I recall making the usual entry into the deck log, “Courses and engines various TMO on pilot’s advice”. This phrase was passed from one generation of seafarers to another and seems to still be in use. Many years later, when I qualified as a solicitor and practiced in maritime law in London, I learned that the phrase was a nonsense. The practical and legal reality is nicely explained in the very readable text book Maritime Law by Christopher Hill at Chap. 13, Pilotage. Hill explains that in English law, a Pilot is defined by the Pilotage Acts as “any person not belonging to a ship [i.e. not a member of her crew] who has the conduct thereof”. And a Master is defined as “every person (except a pilot) having command or charge of a ship”. Question: what does the word “conduct” of a ship actually mean? Answer: It means the exclusive control of the navigation of the vessel with the assistance of the Bridge Team. When a ship is at sea, the OOW will have the conduct or ‘the con’ of the vessel. When the a ship is approaching a pilot station the Master will normally have the conduct/con with the assistance of the Bridge Team. When the pilot boards and the Master/Pilot exchange takes place, the conduct/con will be transferred to the Pilot who will be assisted by the Bridge Team. However, the Master remains in overall command and is entitled to intervene and take back the conduct of the vessel if he/she considers the orders (not ‘advice’) given by the Pilot to be detrimental to the safety of the ship. If this occurs, the Master is then ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’. If he/she fails to intervene and it goes wrong, the Master will be held responsible. If he/she intervenes and it goes wrong, then the Master will be held responsible. Master’s and Bridge Teams should therefore think carefully and plan ahead as to how they would react in such circumstances.
And what should the entry in the ‘bell book’ and deck log really be? My suggestion: ‘Conduct of vessel transferred to Pilot with Master’s and Bridge Team’s assistance’. Feedback is welcomed.
The issue is that ships travel worldwide and there is difference in national laws. It is hard to assume that masters will know the wording of each and every national legislation. Maybe it is about the agents to inform them as regards the exact wording.
In my opinion the log entry you had made during your career at sea and your present proposal coincide as regards the final outcome. All of them are explicit that the bridge acts on the advice of the pilot.
There is an excellent book, Diligent Pilotage, by Captain Antonio Di Lieto, describing the best way for a Captain to work with pilots.
First and foremost there must be a detailed Pilotage plan agreed upon. This plan should have clear safety margins for navigation and speed to facilitate intervention if there is an unintended deviation. Read the book and get many more pieces of good advice.