Yeah it did, but my personal observations were that the Panamanian pilots were “in training” as sort of a deputy to the Americans during that period. Though it may be that we only got Americans as primary pilots because they were sovereign immune US Govt owned vessels. Beyond that, I can’t really say for certain what the overall pilotage situation was. 
I would frame this slightly differently.
I do not think the usual gap between Master and Pilot is a skill gap in the broad sense. It is mainly a local knowledge and port-specific handling gap. A pilot may know a particular channel, berth, tug practice, current pattern, VTS habit, and local manoeuvring language far better than the Master. That is exactly why pilotage exists.
But that does not mean the pilot carries the wider command skill set of the Master. The Master is responsible for the vessel across multiple ports, cargo operations, crew capability, weather, commercial pressure, stability, emergency response, and the overall safety envelope of the ship.
Likewise, a Master cannot be expected to know every port like a local pilot. There are different tug cultures, different languages, different berth approaches, different traffic habits, and different margins all over the world. So the real issue is not Master skill versus Pilot skill. It is whether both skill sets are properly integrated on the bridge.
The Master must be able to challenge when the ship is being taken outside safe limits. The Pilot must provide clear local intent early enough for the bridge team to understand and monitor the manoeuvre. Once either side treats the other as a passenger, the system is already weaker.
No argument - well slight argument. I do believe, in addition to the local knowledge that you rightly identify, I think it is fair to say that professional pilots have better ship handling skills in confined waters than most Masters.
That is probably true for Masters that serve on large ships, calling only at major ports. At most they get to manoeuvre their ships to drop anchor on an open anchorage.
OK. this may have changed a bit,especially for large cruise ships and other types of vessels with Azipods, multiple side thrusters and DP. where the Master may well be best qualified to handle his vessel, in port as well as offshore.
PS: The old joke; “give her a kick to Stbd.” isn’t a joke on such vessels.
Personally I have told the Pilot to stand aside only once. That was on my first ship as Master (1971) A small ship trading S’pore - E.Indonesia vv.
We normally didn’t see pilots very often, but going to Keppel Shipyard (the old one) for docking, pilotage was compulsory.
We got a young pilot who had just completed his training, mostly on tankers at Pu. Bukom. He did not appear to understand that small ships generally reacted quicker to engine orders than those he had trained on, thus as we approaching the dockgate, he asked for “half ahead”.
I just told him “no” and that I would take over from here.
He obviously got upset and complained to the Pilot Office, who asked me why I had “taken command from the pilot”.
My answer was simply that I had not relinquished command to the Pilot and explained the reason in simple term.
PS: Some years later I met the Chief Pilot at the time (Capt. Tan) on a rig towing operation. He remembered the case and explained that many British pilots from colonial day had been retained after independence.
For nationalistic purposes it was necessary to find Singaporeans to replaced them, thus many of the trainee pilots had very limited seatime as officers before being taken in. (Capt. Tan was the first non-British pilot)
Command you always had as far as I understand the word " command" . The only thing you could have taken from the pilot in above described situation was “the con” .
With one exception : Panama Canal where you would not only take back the con from the pilot but also a part of your command /liability , which is temporarily ceded to ACP for the transit purposes as per their regulations.
Having said that and noting that words like command, con, authority , responsibility , liability are frequently and interchangebly used not only here but generally everywhere in maritime discussions, may I ask the native english speakers here to provide some definitions and meaning of all of a/m words.
IMO the whole discussion under this thread should start with such , as precise as possible definitions . Your input will be very much appreciated.
Are You sure. ? If so then pls explain why to take command of sth with LOA 300+ m, one has to acquire certificate of profficiency in handling ships with unussual handling /manouevring characteristics, preceded by rigorous traing in such institutions like Greanoble or similar. Could it mean that it is because such units present less nautical challenges then smaller craft where such certificate is not required.?
That is correct, that is why I said:
The Pilot Office asked me why I had “taken command from the pilot”.
To which I simply answered:
PS: “CONN” is a NAVAL short term for “CONDUCT”, or more specifically; “to conduct or direct the steering of a vessel”.
I can NOT remember the term being used on merchant ships, but have heard it used on offshore vessels and drillship, mainly by Americans.
Ok . I read yours second time .May be i need the third.
Truism . No arguments here.
However :
can you pls describe how this can be achieved w/o sea master quiting his job and becoming the pilot himself. The docking/undocking stats regarding pilot vs commercial ship master may indicate impossibility of achieving such parity or closing the gap . One can not achieve local pilot expertise/experience on leave by reading books and playing with simulator. Hands on experience will still be missing.
Port Revel, Simulators, keep the conn under pilot supervision on selective transits, Actively pay attention to pilots actions - Probably a bunch more.
You have not answered my question.
And thanks for the tip. I surely had no idea such center exists.
The proposed by you “hands on experience” is as close to reality as possible and surely better then simulators .But it is a one time affair ending with issuance of the certificate to fullfill the requirements . Pilots are frequent users of such facilities.
So what was the purpose of your reply ?
To give me directions where to find a training center ?
or
sth else ?
Are u suggesting that each time when I am on leave to get hands on experience to close the gap i shall go to such center. Well I am not sure but if you pay for it as a willing sponsor then why not.
Even if such plan is realistic i am sure the gap will not be closed . The stats i mentioned before prove it.
Of course you are correct - there is nothing a Master or his Company could possibly do to improve their ship handling knowledge - my bad.
You ask a lot, which question may that be?
Could have fooled me. Didn’t you just mention “Grenoble” recently?
Oh sorry, that part has disappeared. (Moderators again?)
Not all simulators are the same, but generally I agree, hands on training and real life experience beat any kind of model or simulator training.
FYI; I live a stone’s throw from what is claimed to be the best and most sophisticated simulator for both offshore training, testing of new technology, products and reach:
Offshore Simulator Centre (OSC) AS (Ålesund): Located at the Norwegian Maritime Competence Center (NMCC), OSC is the world’s leading provider of advanced simulators for high-stakes offshore and anchor-handling operations. You can explore their simulator capabilities on the Offshore Simulator Centre website
Situated in Norwegian Maritime Competence Center (NMCC):
Norwegian Maritime Competence Center (NMCC):
Screenshot of something that has disappeared?
But since you asked again, here is my answer (again):
Herr Bugge .
Pls do not get too cute here.
yours:
if Grenoble disappeared as per yours above then the rest of the post is available for the screenshot.
If the whole post was taken down ( what does not show on my screen ) then your prior post and your subsequent (without mine ) would be availabe for screenshot .FYG the posts are numbered as follows 25, 26, 27 , where yours are 25 & 27.
This is becoming ridiculous and your answer seem to confirm it.
Have good night Herr Bugge.
Fair point.
Agreed that Pilots do have better practised shiphandling skills in confined waters than most Masters simply because they perform those manoeuvres every day.
But I will still broadly agree more with Raghu_Sharma & just wouldn’t call it a pure skill gap. It’s a combination of repetition, local knowledge, and specialised experience in a particular port.
The Master brings a broader command perspective, while the Pilot brings local manoeuvring expertise. Neither replaces the other, which is why the safest bridge is one where both are actively engaged rather than one simply following the other.
I apologize for being so late to the discussion. For background purposes - my career began as a midshipman at the US Naval school, 3 years on a large ammunition ship, 2 years as harbormaster at a naval port in California, 4 years on offshore supply vessels, 4 years on integrated tows and 30 years as a pilot in Houston. I can say I’ve seen the conn issue from both the naval and the merchant side of the question.
Specific to this discussion, without going into a whole lot of details, the issue of who has the “conn” as a formal designation never came up when I was a pilot except on naval vessels. It was simply understood that the pilot’s responsibility was the navigation and the captain decided exclusively ship related items.
In my case I preferred the crew not to repeat the orders. Sometimes it was company policy (usually cruise ships) and I didn’t argue. My reasoning was that when meeting another ship in a narrow channel or when docking sometimes the orders come quickly, one following the other. It was not uncommon for “hard starboard, full ahead” to become only “hard starboard…”.
As a captain of integrated tows, before I was a pilot, I used to arrange with the pilot to steer and control speed myself with them advising. Conforming to the article. The reason was that pilots were not so familiar with towing or pushing 160m barges with only 4 meters of draft. It was one occasion where the captain usually had more experience that the pilot.
It was always understood that the captain could override a pilot’s order, but this was a grave responsibility for a captain. More common was for the captain to express concern and for the pilot to explain why the order was appropriate. In a very few cases the captain would disagree with my recommendation - usually about using a tug or not. I would explain the situation and if the captain still declined to use a tug I would request that a log entry be made that the pilot recommended xxx and the captain declined. This usually resolved the issue in my favor.
So, in my experience, the issue of who had “the conn” never came up. We only took naval vessels to Houston once every few years. The conn ws one of those “navy things” like having 17 sailors on the bridge running around instead of the 2 or three we were accustomed to. Not an issue.
It has been many years since I docked at Houston and apart from a nerveless moment wondering If my air draft calculations were correct and the funnel would pass under the bridge, I was content to leave the conning orders to the Pilot ,particularly when meeting opposing traffic. It was a type of manoeuvring that was outside my experience.