Harbor Pilots- How do they disembark

[Aquahound]

I guess it probably it looks easy but there is always more than meets the eye.

 

That is exactly right. Sand bars shift with each storm and given the water depth approaching ports, any sunken vessel can become a navigational hazard. The pilots are aware of all these issues. This, combined with local knowledge of currents, weather, and other vessel traffic, pilots are a necessity. I think it goes without saying a cruise ship Master could easily approach almost any port and dock safely, but given the potential consequences of one mistake, the extremely high liability necessitates a pilot (local expert).

 

A perfect example is the 1998 grounding of Monarch of the Seas. The ship diverted to St. Martin to disembark a sick passenger. No pilot was on board. As the ship departed, the Captain navigated by "Sailor's Eye," in other words, by sight, not electronics. A buoy was also in the wrong place, something the local pilots were aware of, but not the Captain. The ship hit a reef and if not for intentionally grounding on a sand bar, would have sunk. There was also a large oil spill as a result. Having a local pilot on board could have prevented this.

[DanJ]

 

A perfect example is the 1998 grounding of Monarch of the Seas. The ship diverted to St. Martin to disembark a sick passenger. No pilot was on board. As the ship departed, the Captain navigated by "Sailor's Eye," in other words, by sight, not electronics. A buoy was also in the wrong place, something the local pilots were aware of, but not the Captain. The ship hit a reef and if not for intentionally grounding on a sand bar, would have sunk. There was also a large oil spill as a result. Having a local pilot on board could have prevented this.

 

So could have a simple radio message to the ship.

[Aquahound]

So could have a simple radio message to the ship.

 

When I was active duty USCG, I perfomed Sea Marshal duties in Charleston. We rode out with the pilots and I accompanied them on the ships' bridges. The information provided by the pilots, along with their helm commands were invaluable. I learned a lot about them and what they do. I have no doubt that even in the simplest of ports, these guys are 100% necessary. Also, from what I've seen, ships' Captains respect and appreciate these guys.

[Capt_BJ]

if you want to read some factual discussion about the interaction between the pilot and the Master you might take a look at the NTSB report of the vessel Cosco Busan's allision with the Oakland Bay Bridge

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2009/MAR0901.pdf

 

It provides actual example of the interaction between the pilot and the master in a case where things went wrong (seldom is there investigation if nothing went wrong) ... There are assumptions and conjectures in this thread that are just plain wrong. For 4 years I sat in the Captain's Chair on the bridge and came and went from most ports in the Carib' visited by cruise ships as well as more than a few on the left coast. The interaction between the pilot, the master/captain, and the officer actually doing the driving - often called the conning officer in US jargon - is complex and often dynamic. A real 'highlight' of the job. But don't get me wrong, 99 times out of 100 the pilot bring valuable information and experience to the bridge and is considerd an important resource when following the rule of using "all available means of navigation."

 

Pilotage requirements in the US are Federal law. Most countries have similar laws - but not all. A country has the absolute right to have such laws however. Yes, it is difficult to compare the difficulty of negotiating the Columbia River Bar with exiting Port Everglades or Canaveral but from a legal perspecive the rules are the same.

[Hlitner]

Since the OP mentioned Bayonne we will specifically address that situation. The Pilots that work in the Port of New York/New Jersey have an unusual set-up. The Pilot organization maintains a large boat (more like a small ship) that stays on station well out into the Atlantic. When a Pilot gets on a ship in Bayonne (or New York) they stay on the ship until it clears the heavy traffic area (this can be several hours) and then they are taken off the ship by a pilot boat which takes them over to the Pilot ship which is on station. They usually get some off duty time on that pilot ship (they have bedrooms and other facilities) until it is time for them to bring a ship back into the harbor. At that point the Pilot boat takes them to their next ship. Some other ports are really interesting. We recently cruised all the way up the river to Bourdeaux France. The pilot for that port was flown out our ship on a French helicopter and dropped on the deck using a cable/sling arrangement. When we left the port the pilot stayed with us for over 4 hours and was picked-up off the deck of the ship by a helicopter (who again dropped a cable and pulled him up.

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

Harbor pilots are required in virtually every significant port. While the captain/master of a ship is always held responsible (in the US Navy there are two exceptions: once the bow of the ship enters the Panama Canal or crosses the sill of a drydock, the captain is relieved of responsibility - which then rests with the pilot) the advice of a pilot is deemed essential. Further, the line could jeopardize their insurance coverage if one of its ships had an accident after failing to take a pilot on board.

 

When there are heavy seas, the ship can turn broadside to the seas - the turning action creates a flat area on the sea on the lee side, while the bulk of the ship acts as a windbreak - making it fairly safe for hte pilot to reach the pilot boat under almost any conditions. US Navy ships always used to (and may still) have oil tubes near the bows which would generate a slick with amazing flattening effect (see the old saying " pouring oil on troubled waters"); but nowadays that would probably be banned as polluting.

[DanJ]

When I was active duty USCG, I perfomed Sea Marshal duties in Charleston. We rode out with the pilots and I accompanied them on the ships' bridges. The information provided by the pilots, along with their helm commands were invaluable. I learned a lot about them and what they do. I have no doubt that even in the simplest of ports, these guys are 100% necessary. Also, from what I've seen, ships' Captains respect and appreciate these guys.

 

I was specifically responding to what you said about the Monarch in St Maarten. If a pilot had known the buoy was in the wrong place then so would have somebody who could have relayed that info to the ship.

[GORDONCHICK]

And while Costa Maya looks pretty simple (like Coz), there are some crosswinds that cause problems. An RCCL ship got a good-sized gash docking there, and some port visits there have been canceled because the conditions weren't favorable per the captain/pilot.

[Capt_BJ]

concerning the MONARCH grounding - close but not correct

 

here's an excert from the official report of the incident

 

The ship's master himself then piloted the ship to starboard from an easterly course heading, steadied the vessel up and set a departure course of 160 degrees true to pass east of the Proselyte reef. This course was based largely on the master's mariner eye as well as on the Officer of the Watch's (hereinafter the OOW) feedback that the Automatic Radar Plotting Aid's (ARPA's) calculated Closest Point of Approach (CPA) to the Proselyte reef lighted buoy on the 160 degree course was three (3) cables off (0.3 nm). The master felt that this course provided the vessel a safe passage to

the east of Proselyte reef as well as would allow a safe passage astern of an outbound sailboat that was just to the south and ahead of the MONARCH OF THE SEAS in the vicinity of the Proselyte Reef lighted buoy. The course of 160 degrees was established without first sufficiently determining the initial position of the vessel. Further, no track line for the 160 degree course was laid down or marked on the navigational chart in use at the time nor was the 160 degree course part of the voyage plan from St. Maarten

to Martinique. Additionally, the ship's chart used at the time of the grounding, U.S. no. 25613, was not updated in accordance with Notices to Mariners no. 32/98 with respect to an updated position of the lighted buoy in proselyte Reef.

http://marinecasualty.com/documents/monarch.pdf

 

pages 32 and 33 of the report contain the cruise line's determination of the cause and first among them:

1. The primary cause of this grounding was human error by the Master and his Bridge

Resource Management Team in that they failed to:

a. Accurately determine the position of their ship in relation to a known reef area, and;

b. To navigate their ship in a manner which would give wide berth to such a hazard.

 

page 49 provides conclusions of the USCG and the Maritime Investigator and it contains a lot of technical jargon but what I see is a conclusion that the Master had created a climate where the opinions of others was not appreciated and so when the Master sailed a course over the reef, no one on the bridge felt they were in a position to question his judgement. This is similar to the conclusions in the Oakland situation (if you read that report) where the master states he sensed the pilot didn't like him and was therefore afraid to question the pilot and hence they sailed into the bridge support.

 

The investigation revealed the primary reason for the master and crew's decision not to adhere to SMS procedures centered on the master's disregard for and lack of "by-in" to the formalized requirements of the ISM Code SMS. He voiced his displeasure for the sort of company oversight, bureaucracy and micromanagement that the SMS procedures represented. Without the master's expressed support of the ISM procedures the crew unsurprisingly failed to embrace the newly established SMS and disregarded the established procedures, guidelines and job aids made easily accessible to them on the vessel's bridge.

 

page 51:

 

The investigation revealed that the master's strong personality, confidence and familiarity

with the port, combined with traditional maritime customs and values embraced by the ship's

crew whereby the master's decisions were seen as unquestionable, established an unsafe

condition that significantly contributed to this casualty. While the OOW and staff captain

expressed their confidence in the master's abilities and command, they also testified that he

was unapproachable and expressed discomfort at making suggestions to him or questioning

his decisions.

 

p.s. this reef is outside of the pilotage area for this port

 

p.s.s. I believe it was the USS GONZALES (sp) a brand spanking new USN destroyer that sailed over the same rock in the same approximate time frame causing serious damage to the bottom, shaft, rudders and screws.

[Aquahound]

concerning the MONARCH grounding - close but not correct

 

Sorry, but I have to chuckle about your complication of my original simple statement. You really just said the same thing, but in a lot more words. Os don't even change in retirement, huh? :D;)

 

The only point I was making was a local expert on board probably could have helped prevent this incident. I know they didn't have to have one. It was only to show why local knowledge (pilots) are such an asset on the bridge.

[Capt_BJ]

Sorry, but I have to chuckle about your complication of my original simple statement. You really just said the same thing, but in a lot more words. Os don't even change in retirement, huh? :D;)

 

The only point I was making was a local expert on board probably could have helped prevent this incident. I know they didn't have to have one. It was only to show why local knowledge (pilots) are such an asset on the bridge.

 

you miss MY point

 

If the Master has decided he's not going to listen to local knowledge

 

be it personality conflict, arrogance or a language barrier

 

doom is looming.

 

I sat in the chair ... did you?

 

wrt to "not correct"

 

you said the bouy was in the wrong position, did you not?

 

the investigation points out the bouy was relocated and reported by standard means but the ship (falling to the master's responsibility) failed to update their charts - as required by company policy and international standards . . .

[Aquahound]

you miss MY point...

...

I sat in the chair ... did you?

 

Oh, come on. Is that really necessary? :rolleyes: Let me try this one more time. The whole point I was making was if a pilot was on board (if...nothing more), the grounding may not have happened. I was just making a point about pilots' local knowledge. That's all. Nothing more. Sorry if my details of the Monarch grounding are not spot on. I did not take the time to research it prior to posting....didn't need to. The details are irrelevent to my point. No need to go down the road of attitude. This subject is not worth it.

[DanJ]

I was a pilot once and I always swam to shore...

 

And that's why you no longer work for that airline LOL.

[bob brown]

I have noticed at certain ports besides a harbor pilot, there is also a docking pilot that specializes in that function. Also, on long river voyages such as sailing from the Atlantic all the way to Montreal, due to the long hours, there will be pilots working in watches or perhaps change due to portion qualified?

 

As to the previous post citing the accident investigation... the mention of the crew too timid to challenge the action of the Captain reminds me of the same problem in airlines, where the first officer didn't dare to question certain captain's of a particular ego. The ultimate result after myriad accident or incident investigations resolved with new training in a new 'culture' called Cockpit Resource Management to eliminate those issues.

I believe the maritime industry has adapted a similar Brdge Resource Management...

[Cruzaholic41]

I have noticed at certain ports besides a harbor pilot, there is also a docking pilot that specializes in that function. Also, on long river voyages such as sailing from the Atlantic all the way to Montreal, due to the long hours, there will be pilots working in watches or perhaps change due to portion qualified?

 

Yes, that is correct. Often the water depth at piers is dredged to be deeper than the channel approaching it. I won't pretend to be a pilot expert, but I have also seen docking pilots.

 

I sat in the chair ... did you?

 

You sound an awful lot like that Monarch Captain right now.

[flamomo]

I was on a cruise in Hawaii several years ago when the harbor pilot lost his footing or grasp going down the rope ladder to return to the pilot boat. He fell into the sea batween the cruise ship and the pilot boat, and was seriously injured. He died of those injuries after reaching the hospital. The seas were pretty calm when it happened.

After I got home I read in the Honolulu newspaper that the harbor pilot was around 60 years old and had worked as a harbor pilot for many years.

 

It was very sad, and the evening that it happened, there was an air of sadness on the ship, after the Captain made the announcement that the fellow had not survived his injuries.

[Capt_BJ]

Yes, that is correct. Often the water depth at piers is dredged to be deeper than the channel approaching it. I won't pretend to be a pilot expert, but I have also seen docking pilots.

 

 

 

You sound an awful lot like that Monarch Captain right now.

 

but I didn't run my ships aground

 

navigation is not a contact sport

[nybumpkin]

Here is some pics from my imagination review.

 

 

 

 

And here is how they get on coming in to nassau.

 

 

 

http://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/22453/2252349310094346881S500x500Q85.jpg' alt='2252349310094346881S500x500Q85.jpg'>