Houston Ship PIlots do not own the HSC!

Professional Mariner Forum
21

[QUOTE=Cal;55561]Actually, that is ALL that is required. As the Master, or Mate acting on the Masters behalf, if you believe something is unsafe, you have an obligation to do something. Local custom or standard practice by “experienced operators” becomes secondary in importance.[/QUOTE]

In principle a master can refuse to sail anytime he feels it is unsafe. In practice if you’re causing delays and costing the company money by refusing to do something that is considered a normal practice, sooner or later your going to have to explain what you’re doing, probably sooner. The explanation had better be a very good one your going to be gone.

K.C.

22

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;55572]In principle a master can refuse to sail anytime he feels it is unsafe. In practice if you’re causing delays and costing the company money by refusing to do something that is considered a normal practice, sooner or later your going to have to explain what you’re doing, probably sooner.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. However, that’s not the topic of discussion now is it? If the topic being discussed and the one you raise were DIRECTLY related or one depended on the other then I could agree with your viewpoint. As they aren’t, I don’t.

23

Why didn’t you sound the Danger Signal?

Rule 9 part (e)(i) - In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking, the power-driven vessel [B]INTENDING[/B] to overtake another power-driven vessel shall indicate her intention by sounding the appropriate signal and take steps to permit [B]SAFE[/B] passing. The power-driven vessel being overtaken, [B]IF IN AGREEMENT,[/B] shall sound the same signal and may, [B]if specifically agreed[/B] [B]to[/B] take steps to permit safe passing. If in doubt she [B]SHALL [/B]sound the danger signal.

             (e)(ii) - This Rule does not relieve the overtaking vessel of her obligation under Rule 13 (and Rule 13 clearly states that the overtaking vessel must keep clear of the vessel being overtaken until she is past and clear.)

All of that bold is for 1. Reason for you to sound the 5 short and 2. For the guy who posted above that he “didn’t think” that passing arrangements had to be in agreement Inland. Use of VHF instead of sound signals, fine. But if “whatever” is the response…be the professional mariner that you are and sound the proper signal.

Another question of mine is were you guys working on channel 13? And if so, wouldn’t everyone within 20-25 miles hear this conversation?

24

Then again this is also a Meeting Situation with the vessel coming in…now im sweating a little bit. I understand your frustration. This would be quite a news article if something terrible were to happen.

25

[QUOTE=Capt. Schmitt;55563]Local custom will not hold up in court…[/QUOTE]

It might, or at the least, it might be considered. If it ends up in Court, the issue will be negligence, a violation of the rules of the road would be evidence of negligence, but the issue is still negligence, so other factors would be considered. Negligence is judged by what a reasonable person or in this case, professional would do. So local custom and how a reasonable mariner would act in that location under those circustances is considered. And since we’re talking about what a Court might find, the “Pennsylvania Rule” almost certainly will come up. If you aren’t familiar with this rule, you might want to learn about it. [FONT=Helvetica]You can start [COLOR=#0000ff]here (see page 73). It’s been expanded to include violations of any safety regulation or law, but it started in a rules of the road context.[/FONT][/COLOR]

26

[QUOTE=Capt. Schmitt;55563]Local custom will not hold up in court; it is just that, custom. [/QUOTE]

I was not referring to customs and practices which are contrary to the rules of the road, The question of how close to pass, if you should be outside the channel or not and how much water you need under the keel are all questions of seamanship not the rules of the road - that’s what I am trying to get at.

There are 50 ship transits and 300 tow transits on the HSC every day. How they do things could be considered standard practice, they can’t all be doing it wrong.

K.C…

27

This discussion reminds me of a saying that we had back on NY Tugs back in the 333 days. What is the difference between a Pilot and GOD? Answer - GOD knows he is not a Pilot!!!

28

[QUOTE=Cal;55561]

Any operator knows the “Bigger Rule” and out of professional courtesy will take action to accommodate a larger vessel. But this courtesy does not create an obligation and it appears to me that such is an important fact that is being overlooked.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you that there sometimes is courtesy between vessels. However there is an obligation to use reasonable skill and care beyond the rules. For example giving a less maneuverable vessel a little more sea room may not necessarily be a courtesy with no obligation but may be considered to be outside the scope of the rules but within the scope of the requirement to use good seamanship.

K.C.

29

The “tonnage rule” is officially a part of the rules but not spelled out so clearly. The part of the rules that says something to the effect that the maneuverability of both vessels must be taken into account. But in no collision would anyone be completely faultless.

30

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;55810]I agree with you that there sometimes is courtesy between vessels. However there is an obligation to use reasonable skill and care beyond the rules. For example giving a less maneuverable vessel a little more sea room may not necessarily be a courtesy with no obligation but may be considered to be outside the scope of the rules but within the scope of the requirement to use good seamanship.

K.C.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you can touch your ear with your elbow, I can’t. Maybe it’s quite common for people where you live and work to be able to touch their ear with their elbow. Just because it is a common practice does not make it, nor should it, be a requirement.

It is better to know one’s limitations than one’s abilities. Maybe you think OICUR12 should maneuver and handle the boat the exact same way everyone else does that plies those waters. If he can’t and works within the limitations of his abilities, then he has violated no rule, written or unwritten. That statement is without an assessment of his ability or inability to handle a boat. It’s not a violation of common courtesy, it’s not a violation of the rules, and it’s not a violation of the requirement to use good seamanship. In actuality, he would be remiss if he acted otherwise.

Because he was bullied into what he felt was an unsafe situation and complained about it your knee jerk reaction is to characterize him as an incompetent boat handler. I work with docking pilots on a daily basis. It is my job to do their bidding so they can accomplish their job. While I do my best, and I have never had to tell one NO, that doesn’t mean I won’t. While I have been close to being in that position, I have been fortunate enough that it was averted before I opened my mouth (which is the last thing I try to do).

31

We use good seamanship to efficiently and safely accomplish our goals while at work on the water. We all know that if we do not achieve our goals safely and efficiently our actions may be scrutinized.

In the aftermath of a incident involving loss it is possible that our actions are going to be compared to a standard. That standard is that of “good seamanship” and that is defined (by the courts) as: “any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seaman, or by the special circumstances of the case”

The scope of what could be considered “good seamanship” is very broad. For example it includes being prepared for expected weather, having adequate lines or the proper scope of chain out, ensuring the equipment is functioning properly and so forth, the various things that a person can spend a career learning.

Specifically with regards to the rules of the road, according to my Farwell’s, “However though the regulations do represent good seamanship, they do not cover more than a small part of seamanlike practice.”

To use a specific example say you are on a slow tow preparing to get underway down a river and see a large vessel is nearby, upstream and downbound. A precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seaman in this case might be to call the larger vessel via VHF and discuss the situation and make arrangements for a safe passing. It may be the case the the tow stays moored till the larger vessel has passed. If this happens there is no need to pull out the RoR book and study the the rules on narrow channels or overtaking etc, the application of the rules of the road is avoided by application of the principles of good seamanship.

Another example would be if a larger ship encounters a smaller vessel hove to in heavy weather. It would be poor seamanship for the larger vessel to take the role of the stand-on vessel and force the smaller vessel to alter course when the smaller vessel is facing difficult conditions in heavy weather. Good seamanship may require that the larger vessel alter course early and avoid a rules of the road situation altogether allowing the smaller vessel to maintain a safe course.

From my Farwell’s again:“In considering the mariner’s responsibility …it must be stressed again that the collision regulations are but one part, and a small part, of the principles of good seamanship.”

With regards to the original post, there is not enough information to make a determination one way of the other. However I have made several transits of the HSC and I do know that the ordinary practice of seaman there is for vessels to coordinate and cooperate.

The idea that a strict adherence to the rules of the road is the only requirement of good seamanship or that the actions of vessels outside the scope of the rules of the road is courtesy only is an incorrect one.

K.C.

32

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;55866]…the ordinary practice of seaman there is for vessels to coordinate and cooperate.[/QUOTE]

Which is at the core of OICUR12’s complaint, in his opinion there was no coordination or cooperation, there was dictation and expectation… The pilot dictated to him what his requirements were and expected him to accommodate them.

33

[QUOTE=chemcarrier;55510]I would love to change a lot of things. For example how much radio traffic (bullshitting) on 13 there is in Fourchon. However just like the Pilots in the HSC, some shit just isn’t gonna change. So suck it up and Drive on. Or quit.[/QUOTE]

back at ya bro.

34

[QUOTE=sweet water 70;55559]It would be good to hear the other side of the story from the pilot in question. I doubt it would be the same exaggerated story.[/QUOTE]

stick to groveling for your check from Stan Andrie and kissing Steve’s ass and leave the real boat driving to us. 30 miles of the detroit river doesn’t hold a stick to over 1000 miles of Gulf Intercoastal Waterway Canal and all the passes and ship channels that cross it.
your opinion Randy to me doesn’t count until you have been there done that and we both know you havn’t.

maybe you should go lay down in your shit smelling bunk room and contemplate your response while the bed bugs and lice are feeding on your dirty ass while you sleep.

then again I think the black mold all over the Barb has probaly ate it’s way too far into your brain for an intellegent response:eek:

35

[QUOTE=Smee;55588]Why didn’t you sound the Danger Signal?

Rule 9 part (e)(i) - In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking, the power-driven vessel [B]INTENDING[/B] to overtake another power-driven vessel shall indicate her intention by sounding the appropriate signal and take steps to permit [B]SAFE[/B] passing. The power-driven vessel being overtaken, [B]IF IN AGREEMENT,[/B] shall sound the same signal and may, [B]if specifically agreed[/B] [B]to[/B] take steps to permit safe passing. If in doubt she [B]SHALL [/B]sound the danger signal.

             (e)(ii) - This Rule does not relieve the overtaking vessel of her obligation under Rule 13 (and Rule 13 clearly states that the overtaking vessel must keep clear of the vessel being overtaken until she is past and clear.)

All of that bold is for 1. Reason for you to sound the 5 short and 2. For the guy who posted above that he “didn’t think” that passing arrangements had to be in agreement Inland. Use of VHF instead of sound signals, fine. But if “whatever” is the response…be the professional mariner that you are and sound the proper signal.

Another question of mine is were you guys working on channel 13? And if so, wouldn’t everyone within 20-25 miles hear this conversation?[/QUOTE]

Yes, we were on 13. Yes, several vessels overheard the conversation. And just like on here there were many different takes on it depending on how high above the water you were sitting at the time.
We were using Bridge to Bridge to communicate thus sound signals were not necessary.
My verbal danger signal was to paraphrase…"I am doing all i can do for you. if you can not overtake me safely stay back there."
With the ship being a few miles behind me and my piss ant horns facing forward he would not even have heard my danger signal and i think he demonstrated with the “whatever” move that he didn’t give a shit if i farted 5 or more blasts at him.

thanks for the input though

36

[QUOTE=Smee;55589]Then again this is also a Meeting Situation with the vessel coming in…now im sweating a little bit. I understand your frustration. This would be quite a news article if something terrible were to happen.[/QUOTE]

another reason for not sounding the danger signal. it would only confuse the situation with the inbound ship who would be able to hear it

37

Look I’m just a simple guy. I try to stay out of everyone’s way, make my day rate, and go home. I believe in the KISS rule. Keep it Simple Stupid. Yes, so i can understand.

I agree that for the most part things are very courtious professional most of the time on the HSC. Towboaters know to stay out of the way the best we can.

Unfortunatley I have heard more than just one nasty arguement with some of these “Bully” ship pilots. And they are usually over situations similar to mine.

Guess I got the whole “pecking order” thing mixed up with offshore rules. Thanks for the clarifications.

But on the other hand I am a common sense kind of guy. Maybe if I could have a RoR attorney riding with me and sitting on the setie with his rule book I could be right all the time.

It’s kinda hard to break out the rule book on a midwatch and refer to the section that applies to your situation while you are driving. Yes, Yes, we are all supposed to know the rules of the road.

But if we all knew the rules so well then why do they call in the suits when deciding who was at fault? Because you need a fucking academy lawyer to fully understand half the rules in the book.

To me it’s all pretty simple. 1 whistle is port to port. 2 is stbd to stbd.

I’ll try to stay out of your way and you stay out of mine.

But don’t fuck me up and then expect me to be a nice guy about it.

Yes, there are two sides to every story. And if it wouldn’t cost me my job i would be more than happy to file a complaint and let the suits figure out who was wrong and who was right.

Some of these bully pilots need to be put in their place. And next time I can do it without choppin off my own pecker you better believe i will.

As far as the “drive it or go home” attitude goes…stow it shipmate.

You are probably the same dork that sits behind his desk pounding out safety emails all day long to the boats but then when we tell you something is unsafe you say “drive it or we will find someone who will.”

“We have got to reduce our incidents and accidents!” Then your dispatcher sends me a tow that is way too big for my boat. If i refuse it they will just find another dumbass to take it. If i take it and crash you cram that safety bullshit down my throat and fire me. God Damn. Stow it.

What cracks me up is all these dayboards getting knocked down and nobody asks why. They just put knock down sensors on them so they can hang you by your nuts if you don’t self report.

I would venture to say that a good percentage of them get knocked down by guys that get bullied by “whatever” ship pilots.

I guess I just needed to vent. Made for a good thread and I learned something too. SSDD

38

This sounds like a time when a Blue Box would be welcome. (Google it.) That way no one can argue over what was said by who.

39

Mssr Smee: you pointed out the whole enchilada. inland does not require the overtaken vessel to do anything. The pilot cannot demand or expect the standon vessel to do anything unless agreed to BY the overtaken vessel.
It appears that the pilot has ‘International amnesia’ thinking that once agreement is made the overtaken vessel must " take steps to permit safe passing" as in International Rules.

That is the difference I was trying to point out by saying ‘agreement is not necessary’ in inland.

Although this is a crude example: A ship overtaking (inland) calls a tow. the tow does NOT agree to being overtaken. The ship overtakes anyway. The tow is in NO way required to oblige, move over, or assist the overtaking vessel. When ‘extremis’ occurs, it is another ball of wax. But until / if extremis occurs when in Inland, there needs to be nothing done by a stand on vessel when being overtaken. (unless the stand on vessel agrees to make accommodation in the first place)

Capt Schmidt. Not necessary. There is a recording in the HSC by the USCG already. A simple FOI would get you a transcript.

40

[QUOTE=OICUR12;56179]
You are probably the same dork that sits behind his desk pounding out safety emails all day long to the boats but then when we tell you something is unsafe you say “drive it or we will find someone who will.”

SSDD[/QUOTE]

Not sure who THAT dork is either… But I am sure he is here taking notes!!