Assignment 1

Business and Law for the Shipmaster

Module Code: NAUT 8016
Program Code: SNASC_8

Pilotage
It has been suggested that the laws relating to pilotage unjustly
favor the pilot, in terms of liability and responsibility

Word Count
2063

Submitted by
Dominik Muller-Tolk
National Maritime College of Ireland
March 2015
Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................2
Working with Pilots.............................................................................3
Was the Pilot at fault?........................................................................4

Liability of Pilots/Masters...................................................................5
Trip Insurance....................................................................................6
Conclusion.........................................................................................6
References.........................................................................................8

~1~

Introduction
The pilot master relationship has caused many heated discussions
over the years, both between friends over a pint, and in court over
millions of dollars.
The law with regard to pilotage in Irish ports is laid down in part IV
of the 1996 Harbors act, as amended 2009. This act is explicitly
clear on when and where a ship must employ the services of a pilot
and the penalties for failing to do so. It also clearly limits the liability
of pilots, and pilotage authorities, in respect of damage caused by
ships navigating under pilot.
What it fails to do is to define the breakdown of authority and
responsibility between the pilot and the Master. This has been left to
judges, by way of setting legal precedent. Consequently, when
accidents happen, there tends to be a level of disagreement as to
whether the pilot or the master is to blame, and thus who should be
held to account. On the second point section 63 of the Harbors act is
explicitly clear.
The fact that a ship is being navigated in a pilotage district in
circumstances in which pilotage is compulsory for it shall not affect
any liability of the owner or master of the ship for any loss or
damage caused by the ship or by the manner in which it is
navigated. (Irish Statute Book, 1996)
This results in a situation where, even if both parties agree, in
principle, that the pilot was partly to blame for an accident, it is still
the ship owner that is held liable. From the above it is clearly
apparent why it has been argued that the law on pilotage unfairly
favors the pilot. I intend to examine this argument and demonstrate
why, in my opinion pilots are deserved of the protection afforded
them in law.
Although I feel that perhaps this protection should not extend, as far
as it does, to the pilotage authority, and that the pilotage act is
somewhat lacking in defining the remit of the pilot as part of the
bridge team.

~2~

Working with Pilots

Almost all ships work with pilots on a regular basis and, under the
ISM code, will almost certainly have some sort of policy in this
regard. There are also several publications available to the ships
master/officers offering guidance on the topic of pilotage and
working with pilots. There would appear to be a level of disparity
between some of these guidelines/procedures and legal precedent,
where claims have been brought agents pilots/pilot authorities.
The ICS Bridge Procedures Guide (1998) says that;
The pilot and master should agree on the pilots roles and
responsibilities during the pilotage. If the OOW finds himself in
doubt as to the pilots actions, and the master is not present,
he should inform the master, and take whatever action is
necessary until the master arrives.
Although not directly stated, this implies that the master, or his
representative on the Bridge, has the authority to take the conduct
of the vessel from the pilot, if deemed necessary. No further
guidance is given on how to proceed thereafter. This could be taken
to imply that the master may then continue to conduct the vessel,
with the pilot relegated to an advisory position.
The Carnival Corporation Bridge Resource Management Manual
(2014) states
The master or second in command determines whether the pilot
may be given the Conn or should instead join the Operations
Director in an advisory role to allow the Navigator to continue
Conning.
This clearly indicated the position that the Pilot is solely an advisor
to the bridge team, and that he does not automatically have the
conduct of the ship.
In the case of Babbs V Press (1971) the judge found that the pilot
can only be considered as such if he personally has the conduct of
the ship i.e. the control of its navigation and handling hence if the
master intervenes for whatever reason the pilot ceases to be a pilot.
(Cooke, 2015)
Section 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act would appear to support
this position, defining a pilot as;

~3~

any person not belonging to the ship who has the conduct thereof
(Irish Statute Book, 1894)
This creates a situation where, if the master takes the Conn off the
pilot he is effectively operating without a pilot, in a compulsory
pilotage area, and must act accordingly.

~4~

It may seem strange that so widely varying opinions, on a point of

law, can co-exist. However it is not so surprising that their existence
can lead to confusion and conflict when things start to go wrong;
This situation is often compounded by a language barrier and,
potentially, by a difference in how pilotage law is interpreted in the
masters home country. Article 102 of the Spanish Law of State Ports
and the Merchant Marine defined pilotage as the services of
advising the masters of ships and floating objects on nautical
maneuvers in order to facilitate their safe entry into and exit from a
port. (Carney) This is clearly at odds with the position in Irish law.
I would not be surprised to discover that one or more of the above
factors played an important role in many marine casualties involving
pilots around the world. I have no doubt that these factors played
their parts in the collision of the Sichem Melbourne with the Coryton
oil terminal on the Themes in 2008.

Was the Pilot at fault?

The MAIB report on the Sichem Melbourne colliding with the Coryton
oil terminal (MAIB, 2008) clearly indicates a lack of communication
between the master and the pilot. It seems to me that a prudent
master who was going to hand over the Conn of his ship to a third
party, and himself only intended to assist and monitor, would want
to know exactly what that third part was planning to do before he
handed over the Conn. Likewise a pilot whose intention was purely
to advise the master, and not to have the Conn himself, would make
it his business to give the master as much information as possible
before the maneuver commenced. Finally, no prudent seafarer
would interfere with the controls of a ship, during a maneuver,
without either himself having the Conn or advising the person who
does. It is clear to me that; as the Sichem Melbourne was leaving
the berth both the master and the pilot felt that they had the Conn,
and that the other was there only to advise/assist and monitor.
As the vessel left the berth the pilot instructed the master as to
engine movements and the letting go of mooring lines. The master
accepted these instructions as pilots advice, and supplemented
them with decisions of his own, which he did not communicate back
to the pilot.
There followed a chain of events, which resulted in damage to two
mooring Dolphins and the vessel herself, and narrowly avoided a
collision with the tanker Thombury which was discharging at jetty

~5~

3 at the time.
There are several factors that contributed to the accident both on
the part of the pilot and the master and neither can be found
innocent of wrongdoing.

~6~

In the case of the Oceanges, Gibralter Ltd. V. Port of London

Authority; The Cavendish (Lioyd's Reports, 1993) the plaintiffs and
the defendants agreed before the court that the accident was
caused by the negligence of Captain Clarke (the pilot) and/or the
failure of Captain Clarke to exercise reasonable skill and care in and
about the pilotage service which he was providing to the
Cavendish.
In both cases the courts upheld section 15 of the 1913 UK Pilotage
Act and held the ship liable for all damages incurred.
Although both of these cases refer to UK law this is closely aligned
to Irish law, which affords pilots, and pilotage authorities, the same
level of protection as UK law. Section 63 of the Irish Harbors Act
1996 states
The fact that a ship is being navigated in a compulsory pilotage
district in circumstances in which pilotage is compulsory for it shall
not affect any liability of the owner or master of the ship of any loss
or damages caused by the ship or by the manner in which it is
navigated. (Irish Statute Book, 1996)
It is clear from the above cases that this Law has been tested in the
courts and will, in all likelihood, hold as well in the Irish courts as it
did in the UK.

Liability of Pilots/Masters
Both the master and the pilot are individuals, employed by a
company to do a job to the best of their ability. Both carry huge
responsibility and, in my opinion, are equally burdened in their duty
to ensure the safety of the ship. It follows that neither should have a
personal liability, in excess of the other, in the event of loss or
damages caused by the manner in which the ship is navigated.
In the event of a marine casualty the liability of the master does not
extend beyond the possibility of criminal charges being brought
against him for a criminal offence. This possibility of facing criminal
charges also extends to pilots. Under Irish Law a Pilot is also liable,
under section 70 of the Harbors Act 1996 to a penalty of 2500 plus
the pilotage charge for that pilotage. (Irish Statute Book, 1996) In
practice this is a menial sum, but technically, I would argue that this
is unfairly prejudicial against the pilot.

~7~

It is worth remembering that criminal charges have been brought

against both pilots and master over the years and these can have
significant consequences. After the Cosco Busane struck the Golden
Gate Bridge in 2007, spilling 53,000 gallons of oil the pilot was
charged with violating the Clean waters act and the Migratory Birds
Act, and was sentenced to a fine and 10 months imprisonment.
(Egelko, 2009)
Although not in pilotage waters, after the grounding of the MV Rena
on the Astrolabe Reef (2011), There were six criminal charges
brought against the master. These included operating a vessel in a
manner causing unnecessary danger or risk, and discharging
harmful substances from ships. He was eventually sentenced to 7
months imprisonment. (GCaptain, 2012)

Trip Insurance
In 2001 the California State Harbors and Navigation Code was
amended to introduce the option of trip insurance. This offers
ships, within the jurisdiction of the code, the opportunity to revoke
their obligation to defend and indemnify the pilot in their service.
This optional insurance, at a cost of 235 USD per movement, covers
any civil claim arising out of an act or omission of the pilot, other
than willful misconduct, up to a value of 36 million USD. (Steamship
Mutual, 2014) While this would appear to be a welcome change in
attitude, in practice vessels rarely avail of the option.
It would appear that owners would rather risk having their P&I clubs
pay out for damages, than have to foot an increased pilotage fee
themselves.

Conclusion
Having examined the state of pilotage law in Ireland I would by no
means say that the statute is perfect, nor would I argue that it is not
fit for purpose. It is simply somewhat outdated and, arguably,
somewhat lacking in certain areas. I find it unfortunate that it was
left to judges to decide on the breakdown of duties and
responsibilities between the master and the pilot. It would seem
beneficial to clearly define the duties of the pilot, as in Spanish law.
Regarding the pilots liability I find it correct that he should have no
more civil liability than the master, and feel that the bond of 2500
is unnecessary, and should be scrapped. I suspect that if pilots

~8~

liability were increased, as some would argue it should be, then the
consequential cost of insurance would be passed back to the ship
owner in form of increased pilotage fees. The meager uptake of trip
insurance in California clearly indicates to me that ship owners
would rather continue to risk P&I club money than, themselves, pay
the price of indemnity.
Finally it should be remembered that most countries take a very dim
view of anyone who causes pollution within their waters. There have
been several cases over the years where pilots and/or masters were
convicted on criminal charges relating to marine casualties. Criminal
offences are not covered by the ships P&I club, and the individuals
were held personably liable. In my opinion this threat of criminal
prosecution is incentive enough to ensure that both the pilot and the
master navigate the vessel in their charge to the best of their
abilities, and thus; No additional liability is necessary.

~9~

References

(n.d.).
Carney, P. (n.d.). The legel position of pilots. Barcelona: Ignacio de
Ros Maritime Advocates.
Carnival Corporation. (2014). Bridge Resource Management Manual.
Carnival Corporation.
Cooke, R. (2015). Buisness & Law Course notes. Cork: NMCI.
Egelko, B. (2009, 03 07). Cosco Busan pilot pleads guilty in deal.
Retrieved 03 05, 2015, from SFGate News:
www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Cosco-Busan-pilot-pleadsguilty-in-deal-3168983.php
GCaptain. (2012, 05 25). Rena Officers Jailed. Retrieved 03 05,
2015, from GCaptain: gcaptain.com/rena-officers-jailed/
Irish Statute Book. (1894). Merchant Shipping Act. Office of the
Attorney General.
Irish Statute Book. (1996). Harbours Act. Office of the Attorney
general.
Lioyd's Reports. (1993). Lioyd's Reports Rep. 292. Lioyds.
MAIB. (2008). Report on the investigation of Sichem Melbourn
making heavy contact with mooring structure at Coryton Oil
Refinery Terminal. Southampton: MAIB.
Shipping, I. C. (1998). The ICS Bridge Procedures Guide .
International Chamber of Shipping.
Steamship Mutual. (2014). Pilot liability. Retrieved 03 04, 2015, from
Steamship Mutual:
www.steamshipmutual.com/publications/Articles/PilotLiability1
204.html

~ 10 ~