Editorial 07/06

July 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

Editorial

This year has so far been a disastrous one for shipping accidents which has regrettably resulted in an enhancement of public image of shipping as a poorly run and dangerous industry. The run of disasters started on Christmas day 2005 with the grounding of the APL Panama on the beach at Ensenada in Mexico where she remained stubbornly in place until finally being refloated in March. In February, the tragic capsize and total loss of the Al Salam Boccaccio 98 ferry in the Red Sea with no survivors, coupled with deaths of seafarers in several other disasters has also served to make this one of the worst years for maritime fatalities. It may just be that I am receiving more press reports of incidents but there definitely seems to have been an alarming increase in collisions and groundings with several occurring around the UK. Despite the fact that pilotage waters are acknowledged as the most hazardous section of a vessels voyage, only a minimal number of these incidents have occurred with a pilot on board thus confirming the need to retain traditional pilot recruitment and training policies.

With no national newspaper or major media outlet having a shipping correspondent, the shipping industry is faced with an uphill battle to portray shipping in a positive light but IMPA are at least attempting to redress the balance. Building on the encouraging response to last year’s World Maritime Day, IMPA President, Geoff Taylor, has been establishing contacts within the general media to hold another event this autumn. Although the programme has yet to be finalised I know that Geoff is hoping to arrange an important international media event and also to get pilots to contact their local media and try to get someone out on a ship. It is in all our interests that we highlight the essential role that shipping plays in everyday life and although I know that Geoff’s catchphrase is “the sound of safety is silence” we should loudly trumpet the essential safety role that pilots play in ensuring that shelves of the retail outlets remain fully stocked. When details of the initiative are finalised, I urge you all to give it your full support.

Editorial 04/06

April 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

Editorial

The good news this quarter is that the UKMPA is at last going to be represented within the group Port Skills and Safety Limited (PSSL). PSSL took over from the DfT funded British Ports Industry Training (BPIT) in 2002 and whereas the UKMPA had worked closely with BPIT to produce a comprehensive document detailing National Occupational Standards for Maritime pilots we were not invited to join the port led commercial body of PSSL. It has therefore taken four years of hard work by both Norman McKinney and Les Cate along with members of the Section Committee to finally achieve an invitation to participate on the group’s activities relevant to pilots. The reason that this is important is that PSSL, in conjunction with some nautical colleges, have produced a draft Foundation Degree for ports which will include pilotage and it is therefore essential that pilots are represented. The UKMPA has only one agenda within PSSL and that is safety and we will therefore be using our membership to convince those who may wish to reduce standards that it is in the interests of the whole ports sector that high standards of training and qualifications for pilots are maintained in the interests of ensuring the safety of ships, port infrastructure and reputations!

John Clandillon-Baker

Editorial 01/06

January 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

EDITORIAL

It is a rare pleasure for me to open 2006 with some very good news for pilots. On the 18^th January the EU Ports Directive was finally defeated in the EU Parliament by an overwhelming vote by MEPs of 532 against, 120 for and 25 abstentions.

Although the defeat was a result of many different groups opposing it, the UKMPA through EMPA had undertaken a highly successful lobbying campaign which had played an important role in bringing about this final defeat of the proposed legislation.

Of course, all of this should have been unnecessary since the MEPs had already thrown the directive out before in November 2003 and it is a sad reflection on the democratic process in the EU that following the initial rejection, the Spanish Transport Commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, in a parting gesture of defiance

before she left the Commission, decided to re-present the directive. This resulted in the Commission deciding to ignore the MEP’s vote of rejection and return it to the legislative process. The last two years have therefore seen all the opponents waste much time and resources in re-submitting all their arguments for a second time. Has it gone away for good? Probably not, but the indications are that ports will now be covered by a wider transport directive and it is to be hoped that the lessons of the overwhelming defeat of the Ports Directive will have been noted and the controversial issues of competition in pilotage and self handling will result in these being dropped.  Needless to say, the UKMPA and EMPA are monitoring events very closely.

Remaining in Europe, the other good news is that the ESMARALDA project mentioned in my October 2005 editorial has also been abandoned. The UKMPA are hoping that such good news will be supplemented by a successful resolution of the Belfast dispute, Kristian Pederson’s dismissal appeal and the on-going Humber issue.

Editorial 10/05

October 15th, 2005 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

Editorial

The summer holiday period should be a time to unwind in preparation for the long autumn and winter. Unfortunately attacks on our profession continue with relentless monotony regardless of the season. With the EU Commissioners ignoring the widespread opposition to the Ports Directive, the UKMPA have supported EMPA in producing amendments to remove pilotage from the directive in case it is not rejected by the vote in December.  On the home front work has been ongoing in supporting Kristian Pedersen in his claim for unfair dismissal and the Belfast pilots who are fighting dramatic changes to their working agreement. Work on the PMSC and the incorporation of NOS for pilots is proceeding, but slower than had been hoped as a result of a deferment of the October meeting.

Just in case all this wasn’t providing enough areas to monitor, a new EU project has appeared. This project seems to be promoting an argument that pilots should be removed from ships because of the cost of delays to shipping incurred by ships having to reduce speed to pick the pilot up!  As yet this is an embryonic project picked up by EMPA and it would be nice to dismiss it as nonsense or an out of season April fool’s joke but sadly it is not beyond the realms of possibility of the anti- pilot lobby to dream up such a project and then to secure funding to promote it!

To conclude on a more cheerful note, The Congress of the Canadian Marine Pilots Association generated some good positive press for pilots as did an IMPA initiative by Geoff Taylor for pilots to take a journalist on a pilotage passage in support of the IMO World Maritime Day.

This resulted in my spending a very pleasant day with Michael Grey on the Thames and Gareth Rees with Richard Clayton from Fairplay magazine on the Solent. Whilst it is proving difficult to generate interest from the mainstream media, Richard Clayton concluded his article with “No news means professionalism at work: that’s good news.” It is the responsibility of all pilots to fight to keep it that way.

Editorial 07/05

July 15th, 2005 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

EDITORIAL

At the time of writing this editorial the EU is in turmoil following the rejection of the proposed constitution. Having been over in France at the time the electorate decided “Non” it was interesting to note that almost immediately the unelected and unaccountable Commissioners decided that because the vote had not gone as anticipated then it should be ignored and that ratification should continue regardless! This arrogant attitude reveals the detachment of the Commissioners from the reality of the situation that many of the arguments that convinced the French and Dutch to vote against the constitution were based on concerns that the Commissioners were becoming too powerful and ignoring fundamental democratic principles.

For pilots such rejection of democracy has been in evidence since the MEPs and

the EU Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the Ports Directive and the

Commissioners decided to ignore the reasoning and re-introduce it again virtually unchanged as PP2 in anticipation that they would be able to force it through with the votes from the new member States. Fortunately the “No” vote has resulted in such antics being exposed to greater scrutiny and there are signs that in the face of potentially damaging headlines over threatened strike action in EU ports, when the Directive was re-submitted on the 15^th June, the Commissioners decided that the imperative need for this directive may not be so pressing after all and have accepted in principle that member states are best placed to decide their ports’ policy!

The UKMPA as part of the EMPA lobby group were present in Brussels and the safety arguments against PP2 have been coherently presented and should this directive be finally buried then your subscriptions will have helped to defeat the greatest threat to pilots’ livelihoods since the 1987 Pilotage Act.

John Clandillon-Baker

Following my April 2005 editorial, I received some feedback questioning the validity and accuracy of my statement regarding the out of court settlement between Milford Haven and the International Oil Protection Compensation Fund 1971. Although I

am a volunteer editor with a zero research budget (cue for sympathetic violins!) I do try to ensure accuracy and in this case the source of the information was a press release from the IOPCF which can be read (and is well worth reading!) in full at the

following web address:

www.iopcfund.org/pr-pdf/sea_empress.pdf

Editorial 04/05

April 15th, 2005 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

EDITORIAL

As all pilots know there are frequently occasions where a pilotage act is undertaken which utilises all the skills and experience accrued during a pilot’s career.  I recently undertook such an act and whilst unwinding after its successful conclusion there were two key elements that occurred to me. Firstly, having transited the approach channel constantly adjusting for leeway of between 4 and 8 degrees depending on wind gusts and also passing other vessels at close range this transit underlined what all pilots know in that such a passage would be impossible to conduct from a VTS centre no matter how sophisticated the equipment or how experienced the VTS operator might be.  The other point was to question why on earth the shipping and ports representatives are putting up such a strong resistance to the incorporation of pilotage qualifications and standards into the PMSC. Under BPIT, pilots produced the necessary National Occupational Standards and all that is required is for these to be formally integrated into the Code. With the insurers highlighting the escalating level of claims allegedly resulting from pilot error (see page 10) one would expect that ports and shipowners would wish to ensure that pilots are recruited and trained to the highest standards especially since it was only through an out of court settlement that Milford Haven avoided a court action brought by the Oil Pollution Compensation Fund for failing to train the pilot of the Sea Empress to an acceptable standard of competence. Regrettably the risks of another major pilotage incident in a UK port are seemingly being trivialised. With the pilot standards document effectively shelved by the apparently dormant port run body of Port Skills and Safety Ltd. (PSSL) there now also appears to be a growing movement to kill off the Education, Training, Certification & Standards (ETCS) programme for maritime pilots currently running in Europe. The old insurance adage of “if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident” has never been more relevant!

Editorial 01/05

January 15th, 2005 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

EDITORIAL

During a time normally reserved for festivities, the end of 2004 and the opening of 2005 was a tragic period with distressing images of death and destruction from Asia (and perhaps we should not forget Iraq) severely dampening the holiday mood. Our thoughts are with all those who may have suffered the loss of family or close friends.  In the world of pilotage the end of 2004 saw the decision by the unelected EU commissioners overturn the democratic vote of the Parliament and permit the outgoing transport commissioner Loyola de Palacio to reintroduce the previously rejected Ports Directive. The fight against this has already begun but the EU enlargement may mean that this is going to be a more difficult battle to win this time around. At least in this uphill battle we are supported by the UK Major Ports Group who are also vehemently opposed to the directive.

In the UK the Reviews of the Port Marine Safety Code and the 1987 Pilotage Act continue with the UKMPA representing the interests of pilots with the new team at the DfT. The MCA in its new role as the operational arm of the DfT in matters concerning maritime safety are also now involved.

Following the success of my decision last year to make the January issue the conference issue, this will now become a regular feature even though it means that I have to spend Christmas transcribing the conference tapes!!

Already, following the conference, there are indications that there is going to be resistance from the ports, not just in against legislation that may underpin the PMSC or the 1987 Act but also to the incorporation of pilotage standards into the Code. All the above topics are dealt with in detail in the magazine with latest news updates. 2005 is going to be another very challenging year for the Association so all members should pay careful attention to the debates.

Editorial 10/04

October 15th, 2004 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

EDITORIAL

Reading press releases and browsing through maritime journals it is easy to gain the impression that every new vessel is fitted out with the latest in hi-tech systems and equipment but as any pilot knows this image is totally false and thus dangerously deceptive. Regrettably, these images are those that are seen by the armchair “experts” who question why a pilot is needed in addition to this apparent seamless interface between the crew and their ship. The reality of this false image was brought home to me the other day whilst piloting a new 40,000 dwt tanker.  Built in Korea the bridge layout was indistinguishable from a wheelhouse from the 1970s with the row of pale green instrument over the top of the central bridge windows and the helm indicator directly over the top of the pilot conning position between the “standard” console and the central gyro repeater on the bridge front. We are all familiar with the contortions required by this layout to verify that engine and helm orders are being correctly executed and of course the wheelhouse contained none of the exciting integrated products and even the daylight (green on black invisible in sunlight) radars were housed in the traditional green casings!

This traditional design had also encompassed the deck machinery where half the required moorings had to be secured by turning up on the bitts. The mooring was handled by one officer and two crewmen (apparently legal manning) each end resulting in the operation taking 11/2 hours! Thirty years ago there would

have been an officer plus 6-8 men and the same operation would have taken one third of the time. This is a major problem for pilots since during mooring and unmooring we have to hold the vessel in position on the berth, often in strong winds and tide.  Such a situation is always inherently dangerous since even a minor error can result in damage, injury or death and this minimum manning vastly enhances the risks. We all know that such vessels have filing cabinets full of compliance documentation to reassure all the inspectors and armchair wallahs but in the event of an accident the Master and pilot will be subjected to an intense interrogation and will inevitably found to have done something wrong and most alarming is the increasing tendency to bring criminal charges against seafarers. The impact of minimum manning on pilots will not be addressed and their value will continue to be undervalued unless we continue to raise issues such as this at the highest levels.  Despite progress being slow there is evidence that the campaigning by the UKMPA, EMPA and IMPA is now changing opinions. Membership of the UKMPA ensures that your concerns are not only heard but also effectively raised at national and international fora and its insurances also ensure that pilots are fully supported should the unthinkable happen.

John Clandillon-Baker

Editorial 08/04

August 15th, 2004 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

EDITORIAL

In June I attended a Nautical Institute Seminar in Bristol entitled the Master/Pilot Relationship: A training need? Organised by Bristol pilot Avald Wymark it brought together a full spectrum of maritime experts to explore various problem areas of the Master pilot relationship. The seminar con.rmed what most of us are aware of in that the law covering pilotage is far from clear cut. The seminar explored typical scenarios where the Master/Pilot relationship may become strained and the outcome from the legal and P&I clubs was very informative. The most interesting fact to emerge was that in the case when damage is done whilst manoeuvring with a pilot embarked. Both the legal and P&I Club representatives present con.rmed that when it came to apportioning blame there was no real interest in who was responsible for the damage since the P&I Club picked up the bill regardless of who caused it. This has long been of concern to pilotage organisations since when the Master submits a report following damage in pilotage waters, human nature dictates that he will naturally blame the pilot and this obviously distorts the statistics! P&I Clubs are publishing statistics revealing that “pilot error” is responsible for 30% of port damage claims and expressing deep concern at the escalating costs of each claim and statistics are being used by the anti-pilot lobby to depict us as an unnecessary and expensive (even dangerous!) accessory to the bridge team. IMPA has calculated that a more accurate .gure is 7%-10% which is a vast difference. However, care is needed in challenging the status quo since one of the reasons that the P&I Clubs don’t feel the need to delve too deeply into apportioning blame is a result of the limitation of liability covering pilots. This historical limitation is also starting to be questioned and indeed challenged and there is an increasing lobby to get the legalities covering pilots “modernised”. The Master/Pilot relationship is therefore a debate that pilots need to be fully involved with.

Editorial 04/04

April 1st, 2004 by JCB
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »

The last few years has seen an increasing tendency to criminalise the mariner and pilots should be aware of the latest piece of legislation to be slipped quietly in by the Government which makes “professional mariners” subject to the same alcohol limits as drivers. As of 30th March 2004 “professional mariners” will be declared over the limit if they have more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The testing regime is also the same as on the road which means that the police will be able to use the same equipment and follow the same procedures as they do with motorists.
The announcement means that the Government is fulfilling its pledge to implement Lord Justice Clarke’s recommendation in his report into the Marchioness disaster to introduce alcohol limits and tests for mariners. Marine officials have been given powers to detain vessels pending the arrival of the police if they have reason to suspect that an offence is being committed. In order that all may be clear as to whom the regulations apply the official DfT press release states: “The law will apply to professional mariners on UK registered vessels around the globe and to those serving on foreign vessels while in UK waters and on un-registered vessels in UK waters”. An early indicator that police and Magistrates will impose maximum penalties on mariners was revealed prior to the legislation being introduced when the Master of the dredger Donald Redford, which collided with Hythe pier in Southampton Water, was charged under the Merchant Shipping Act for the offence of conduct endangering ships, structures and individuals. In that case the Master was found to be 2.5 times over the road drivers’ limit and was sentenced to two eight month custodial terms to run concurrently which is a very severe penalty rarely, if ever, imposed on similarly “over the limit” road drivers involved in non fatal accidents. All pilots should therefore be fully aware of the implications of the new legislation and this court case which means that if a pilot is involved in any notifiable incident he will be arrested by the police, breathalysed and judged in court rather than the matter being dealt with internally by their CHA. You have been warned!
PS The legislation currently only applies to professional mariners. However there are plans to extend the legislation to leisure users as well but in this case the DfT are undertaking a consultation process and details are available on the DfT website (consultation) at: www.dft.gov.uk

John Clandillon-Baker