Boatnerd Discussion Forum

aGuest wrote:Many P&I clubs (most of these are entities in London) will neither insure nor allow their members vessels to enter the Great Lakes because of the pilotage thing.

Somebody here said the US pilots liability is unlimited-, um, I don't think that is even remotely close to true in practical terms.

One of the most influential maritime people on the planet said that operating in the Great Lakes reminds him of operating in the dodgiest of the third-world countries, that's just plain embarrassing to have to hear.

A pilot's liability is limited in Canadian waters to a specific value, but not in U.S. waters. However, while in all Canadian waters, navigation must be conducted by a certified pilot, U.S. waters are divided between designated and undesignated. In U.S. undesignated waters the pilot "must be available to direct navigation at the discretion of the master" - clearly an optional adviser role. In U.S. designated waters the pilot must direct navigation "subject to the customary authority of the master".
In both designated and undesignated waters of the U.S. the wording brings the master into a role of authority/responsibility, possibly limiting the pilots liability.
Its understandable the P&I clubs and shipping company's avoid the Great Lakes. The situation is very confusing. Canadian pilotage authorities want to encourage the interpretation that "conducting navigation" equals "having the con". However most nations would interpret "the con" as having "control" which is more intricately involved than the oversight of "conducting navigation".
The "conducting navigation" in Canadian waters is very comparable to the U.S. "directing navigation" in designated waters.
Its a mess of misunderstandings that very few at any level of the industry have tried to resolve. Administrators and authorities don't want to acknowledge misunderstanding exists. Those in the wheelhouse see the unspoken jockeying and uncertainty, of who has what role, that occasionally distracts from the safety of the maneuver.
For the salties that deal with different pilotage policies around the world it must be a challenge.

As a little add-on to my earlier post.
In Sept Iles and Point Noir we used to be obliged to have a pilot and tugboat to berth and undock when completed loading.
The lakes companies obtained a deal where this was no longer a requirement as they rightly contended their masters were capable of doing this themselves.
Great for the companies as the saving were significant.
I asked if we as masters would get extra compensation for doing this ( some companies paid a bonus for doing the Seaway)
The response I received was " you get to keep your job".
Gave you that warm and fussy feeling !.
This company is no longer operating.

Many P&I clubs (most of these are entities in London) will neither insure nor allow their members vessels to enter the Great Lakes because of the pilotage thing.

Somebody here said the US pilots liability is unlimited-, um, I don't think that is even remotely close to true in practical terms.

One of the most influential maritime people on the planet said that operating in the Great Lakes reminds him of operating in the dodgiest of the third-world countries, that's just plain embarrassing to have to hear.

As guest said in a previous comment it wont be resolved, and no it wont its been 60 yrs now, the urban myth that's been around just as long is it's a french english thing read into that what you will.

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote:Where the issue really shows up on the great lakes St lawrence is when Lakers need pilots down the St Lawrence companies and Masters don't understand why after hundreds of trips down below they still need a pilot,as EU said there a very tight knit powerful group!

Where does the Master go once they clear St-lambert lock downbound ? They go to bed , so hundred trips or not .
On the company side , you are right : much cheaper to have the master piloting . That story comes back every so often and will not be resolved with the actual pilotage act in canada and all that despite quite a few reviews of the pilotage initiated by the federal govt.

As master who sailed this route many times I can say for certain I had no desire to do the pilotage below Montreal. By the time we reached there we had been piloting through the Soo, St.Clair and Detriot rivers a Welland Canal transit and the Seaway so we were very tired and needed sleep. It would have been unsafe in this condition to continue.

Guest wrote:Where the issue really shows up on the great lakes St lawrence is when Lakers need pilots down the St Lawrence companies and Masters don't understand why after hundreds of trips down below they still need a pilot,as EU said there a very tight knit powerful group!

Where does the Master go once they clear St-lambert lock downbound ? They go to bed , so hundred trips or not ...
On the company side , you are right : much cheaper to have the master piloting . That story comes back every so often and will not be resolved with the actual pilotage act in canada and all that despite quite a few reviews of the pilotage initiated by the federal govt.

Basically if the pilot screws up the Master is still responsible!

Is the pilot or master responsible? The way I look at it nowadays is that it doesn't matter what the law is, if there is ever a big enough problem it will go to court anyways and who knows what they will decide.
All maritime entities have complex strategies for avoiding legal responsibility except for the seafarers.

Where the issue really shows up on the great lakes St lawrence is when Lakers need pilots down the St Lawrence companies and Masters don't understand why after hundreds of trips down below they still need a pilot,as EU said there a very tight knit powerful group!

Guest wrote:It is a myth that a pilot is an adviser. Some marine academies are still misinforming their students. But marine lawyers and courts do not agree with you.
In all Canadian waters of the Great Lakes and in designated U.S. waters, essentially rivers and harbors of the Great Lakes, navigation MUST be under the conduct of a certified / licensed pilot. Domestic ships officers are all most all certified, making them pilots for their own vessel.
Any certified pilot or ships officer who is still in belief that a pilot is merely an adviser is in risk of a legal shock if involved in an incident. A pilot/certified ships officer is not an adviser he is a conductor and as such issues directions regarding navigation that the master is legal bound to comply with. If the master "believes on reasonable grounds that the actions of a licensed pilot or holder of a pilotage certificate on board a ship are, in any way, endangering the safety of the ship, the master may, in the interest of the safety of the ship, take the conduct of the ship from the licensed pilot.." however being "not comfortable" is not an acceptable justification.
The regulations go on to say "Where the master of a ship takes the conduct of a ship from a licensed pilot or holder of a pilotage certificate, the master shall file, within three days of taking the conduct of the ship, a written report setting out the master’s reasons therefor with the Authority that issued the licence or pilotage certificate.

The Egyptian government seems to believe the captain was in charge of the Ever Given. They state the TWO pilots on board the Ever Given were there to offer guidance. They are not responsible for the decisions that were made.

The responsibility for the ship rests with the Master. No one else. I wonder how the Elder Brethren have ruled on this?

Only Canadian pilots have a $1000 limit. For American pilots, the liability is unlimited. Everything is on the line. . . every day.

There will always be a feud between masters and pilots as long as the maximum liability of a pilot for loss or damage will be $1000.00 (canada pilotage act article 40)
The liability of the master or the owner have no limitation even if the vessel is under the conduct of a pilot.(article 41 canadian pilotage act)

A Galveston Bar Pilot once put a quite sizable deformation into the hull plating of a tanker I worked aboard. The impact with the quayside was enough it woke up people from their sleep in bed. DNV visited to look at the damaged plating and buckled frame. As we were scheduled for our 5 year SPS (dry dock) in a few month's time, they allowed us to sail, but it was borderline in their mind.

The pilot walked down the accommodation ladder with nothing so much as a "sorry". He is still a Galveston Bar Pilot, and the company cannot even request that he does not board their vessels. Pilots are a very tight-knit, powerful group.

With VDR microphones now placed around the Bridge, it will be curious to see what repercussions are enforced, or what incidents are investigated when these issues occur.

It is a myth that a pilot is an adviser. Some marine academies are still misinforming their students. But marine lawyers and courts do not agree with you.
In all Canadian waters of the Great Lakes and in designated U.S. waters, essentially rivers and harbors of the Great Lakes, navigation MUST be under the conduct of a certified / licensed pilot. Domestic ships officers are all most all certified, making them pilots for their own vessel.
Any certified pilot or ships officer who is still in belief that a pilot is merely an adviser is in risk of a legal shock if involved in an incident. A pilot/certified ships officer is not an adviser he is a conductor and as such issues directions regarding navigation that the master is legal bound to comply with. If the master "believes on reasonable grounds that the actions of a licensed pilot or holder of a pilotage certificate on board a ship are, in any way, endangering the safety of the ship, the master may, in the interest of the safety of the ship, take the conduct of the ship from the licensed pilot..." however being "not comfortable" is not an acceptable justification.
The regulations go on to say "Where the master of a ship takes the conduct of a ship from a licensed pilot or holder of a pilotage certificate, the master shall file, within three days of taking the conduct of the ship, a written report setting out the master’s reasons therefor with the Authority that issued the licence or pilotage certificate.

The captain is still in charge and can (and does) take over at times. On ocean ships some captains would let the pilot also do the docking. On others the captain would take over. As a mate on a container ship even I overruled a pilot. The pilot was screwing up and the captain was afraid to say anything. I yelled "hard left". The pilot yelled "NO!" A few seconds later the pilot yelled "I mean YES!"

The master doesn't give the pilot all that power, the laws of the nation give the pilot the power and responsibility. The decision by the nation to give that responsibility to a pilot is based on extensive experience, training and a thorough examination process.

Early in the story it says "While Captain Mihaylov was on the bridge for nearly all of the river transit, however, he was not in charge of the ship’s navigation."

This is misinformation. Pilots are there for advice to the Master. While the pilot may make many decisions and issue various orders and effectively have the "conn" of the vessel the ship's Master is always in charge of the ship's navigation. The Master may take over the "conn" at any time that he/she is not comfortable with the pilot's actions.

Also, during the time the pilot is on board the watchkeeping mate is responsible to maintain the watch and advise both Master and pilot if there is any discrepancy with the sailing plan, if the actions of the pilot are questionable, if the Master or pilot has not noticed something that may affect the safe navigation of the ship.

One does not simply step aside and give the pilot all power. That would be negligent.