Pilotage Issues
As the page heading suggests, this section is dedicated to pilotage issues. In particular, we would like to bring to light and promote a new pilotage paradigm. Pilotage is, in essence, a well established risk reduction methodology. Although pilotage reduces risks and has a proven track record for safety, unnecessary accidents continue to happen. There is room for improvement!
One of the fundamental principals of bridge resource management (BRM) is that of ''the challenge''. That is to say, if one bridge team member is not sure of the actions of the other, that person challenges the action. The challenge can only be forthcoming if certain conditions are in place, one of which is a common plan. If the ship's navigators and the pilot are not working from a common plan, if they do not have the same ''mental model'' of the transit – then BRM cannot work.
Since its inception and even today in many parts of the world, pilotage remains a dark art jealously guarded by its custodian pilots. The practice follows a well established routine: Once on board and with only the most cursory exchange of information, the pilot takes the con and begins giving helm or course-to-steer orders. The ship's bridge team are left scrambling to fix the vessel's position and guess if the actions of the pilot are appropriate.
We would like to propose an improved methodology
A higher level of safety could be attained if pilotage passage plans were published thus allowing crews to incorporate these plans into their own berth to berth passage plans. Any last minute changes due to dredging, waterway works, or some other event could quickly be communicated to the bridge team by the pilot upon boarding. As the vessel is being conned by the pilot, the ship's bridge team are now in a position to challenge if things do not look right. Admittedly, not all pilotage areas are conducive to detailed pre-planning due to their highly dynamic and congested nature – but we maintain that these are far and few between.
Of course, even if everyone is ''singing from the same songsheet'' accidents can still happen. For BRM to be fully leveraged other best practices must be used as well, such as engaging the OOW/Master in the pilotage as well as "thinking out loud". As a pilot, this last technique involves telling the navigation team what your next move will be before doing it.
The papers listed below, some authored by SafeShip personnel and some by other concerned marine professionals, are dedicated to promoting this new pilotage paradigm.
One of the fundamental principals of bridge resource management (BRM) is that of ''the challenge''. That is to say, if one bridge team member is not sure of the actions of the other, that person challenges the action. The challenge can only be forthcoming if certain conditions are in place, one of which is a common plan. If the ship's navigators and the pilot are not working from a common plan, if they do not have the same ''mental model'' of the transit – then BRM cannot work.
Since its inception and even today in many parts of the world, pilotage remains a dark art jealously guarded by its custodian pilots. The practice follows a well established routine: Once on board and with only the most cursory exchange of information, the pilot takes the con and begins giving helm or course-to-steer orders. The ship's bridge team are left scrambling to fix the vessel's position and guess if the actions of the pilot are appropriate.
We would like to propose an improved methodology
A higher level of safety could be attained if pilotage passage plans were published thus allowing crews to incorporate these plans into their own berth to berth passage plans. Any last minute changes due to dredging, waterway works, or some other event could quickly be communicated to the bridge team by the pilot upon boarding. As the vessel is being conned by the pilot, the ship's bridge team are now in a position to challenge if things do not look right. Admittedly, not all pilotage areas are conducive to detailed pre-planning due to their highly dynamic and congested nature – but we maintain that these are far and few between.
Of course, even if everyone is ''singing from the same songsheet'' accidents can still happen. For BRM to be fully leveraged other best practices must be used as well, such as engaging the OOW/Master in the pilotage as well as "thinking out loud". As a pilot, this last technique involves telling the navigation team what your next move will be before doing it.
The papers listed below, some authored by SafeShip personnel and some by other concerned marine professionals, are dedicated to promoting this new pilotage paradigm.
MPX A Highway to Human Error or a Stronghold Against System Variability?
Michael Schmidt Sørensen & Jakob Trolle of LUND UNIVERSITY have published a very insightful paper on the MPX. This 2020 publication takes a qualitative look at the MPX as seen through the eyes of vessel Masters and pilots; well worth the read.
Study into Shared Pilotage Passage Plans Shows Increased Safety
In a seminal study conducted by Jahn Viggo Rønningen at the University College of Southeast Norway, it was conclusively shown that a shared plan leads to better navigation, more speedy recovery in case of navigational errors and higher navigational safety. Please access the paper here.
TSB Recommendation on Pilotage Passage Plans
In 1995, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) published a seminal safety study on the Master/Pilot relationship. One of the recommendations of this study was that;
''The department of Transport, require that the pilotage authorities publish official passage plans for compulsory pilotage waters and make them available to masters to facilitate monitoring of the pilot's actions by the vessel's bridge team.'' (TSB Recommendation M94-34)
To date, progress has been made in Canada with the publication of Pilotage Passage Plans for the Atlantic Region, St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes.
''The department of Transport, require that the pilotage authorities publish official passage plans for compulsory pilotage waters and make them available to masters to facilitate monitoring of the pilot's actions by the vessel's bridge team.'' (TSB Recommendation M94-34)
To date, progress has been made in Canada with the publication of Pilotage Passage Plans for the Atlantic Region, St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes.
ATSB Safety Issue Investigation into Queesland Coastal Pilotage
The ATSB's report brings to light some important factors that affect safety within any pilotage organisation. Pilotage authorities will ignore these factors at their own peril. Some of the seminal findings of this study are;
These are just a sample of the many important findings. Should you wish to peruse the report in its' entirety, please click here.
- not all pilotage operations are covered by an approved safety management system
- the absence of passage plans to allow ship crews to pre-plan passages
- the devolution of the responsibility to manage the most safety critical aspects of coastal pilotage to the individual pilots without direct regulatory oversight
- significant under-reporting where the number of grounding or collision risk events claimed by pilots in 2010 was about 10 times the number included in AMSA and pilotage provider incident records
These are just a sample of the many important findings. Should you wish to peruse the report in its' entirety, please click here.
The Pilotage ParadoxOn 7 November 2007, the Cosco Busan made headlines around the world for clipping the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge on
the outbound voyage and in the process spilling just over 200 tonnes of oil. In absolute terms this was a small accident, yet it is an indicator of systemic failure that could have resulted in consequences far more damaging. This article looks at underlying issues of the interaction between the bridge team and the pilot which may have contributed to the outcome. Please click here for the full article, first published in Seaways magazine, September 2008 edition. |
The Pilotage ParadigmThis article picks up where the Pilotage Paradox left off, examining the importance of the shared plan when under pilotage.
Please click here to access the article, first published in Seaways magazine, October 2009 edition. |
Pilotage Passage Plans - New Directions
IMO Resolution A.893(21) requires voyage planning from berth to berth including pilotage waters. The paradox of this requirement is that a ship's navigator is not party to the pilot's plan. In order to bridge this gap, specific and detailed pilotage passage plans (PPPs) should be developed and published to enhance safety.
Captain Heath's article, published in the October 2010 edition of Seaways, gives an overview of the work done for the Port of Newcastle, Australia.
To access this article please click here.
Captain Heath's article, published in the October 2010 edition of Seaways, gives an overview of the work done for the Port of Newcastle, Australia.
To access this article please click here.
The portable pilotage unit – panacea or Pandora’s Box?
The portable pilotage unit (PPU) is a highly precise aid to navigation that is undoubtedly a powerful tool to help augment safety while under pilotage. But will the advent of the PPU introduce hidden risks and/or reinforce old bad habits? To access the full article as it appeared in The Nautical Institute's Seaways magazine, please click here.
The master-pilot exchange: a study into this critical relationship
Read Capt. Richard Wild's executive summary of his MSc dissertation here.
|
The Paradigm and the Paradox of Perfect Pilotage
Read Capt. Richard Wild's introduction to his excellent article that first appeared in the Journal of Navigation 2011 (64) here.
|
Passage Planning - Pilot to BerthCapt. Yves Beeckman, MNI, writes about the importance of a common plan from the pilot boarding area to the berth.
As published in The Nautical Institute's Seaways Magazine (October 2010). Please click here to access this article. |
Navigation Related Marine Casualties With Pilots on BoardOf course, the risk of a navigation related casualty while under pilotage is higher than when at sea due to the proximity of hazards and the complexity of the navigation and teamwork needed. But teamwork there must be in order to avoid single point failure. Here are some best practices from the Republic of the Marshall Islands as published in their MARINE SAFETY ADVISORY- please click here
|
Links to Published Pilotage Passage PlansListed below are the links to pilotage passage plans that we have become aware of. SafeShip cannot vouch for their accuracy nor their authenticity. Please do your own due diligence. Safe sailing. >Newcastle, Australia >Sydney Ports, Australia >Queensland Ports, Australia >Geraldton Port, Australia >Port Philip Sea Pilots, Australia >Port Kembla, Australia >Port Yamba, Australia >Great Lakes Pilotage Authority >Lowestoft (UK) >Laurentian Pilotage Auth.(Canada) >Atlantic Pilotage Auth. (Canada) >Great Lakes Pilotage Auth. (Canada) |
BRM 2.0! Has BRM drifted away from its founding principals?
Ed Verbeek's thought provoking article on how BRM has evolved over the years. For further reading please click here to view the article as it appeared in the January 2019 edition of The Nautical Institute's Seaways magazine.
Going Local
some thoughts about the use of local language in tug operations
is English
always the best option?
Another of Ed Verbeek's thought provoking articles, this one on communication with tugs and bridge teams. Ed builds a very convincing argument for using the local language, but with some important caveats. For further reading please click here to view the article as it appeared in the February 2014 edition of The Nautical Institute's Seaways magazine.
Pilot's Role and Crew Responsibility
Please click here to read the Norwegian Hull Club's casualty information publication that reiterates many of the issues raised in the preceding documentation.
