Mutual courtesy and respect was shown when the captain welcomed the pilot to his ship and the pilot welcomed the captain to port. A handshake and a smile were enough between two professionals. A formulaic phrase acknowledging what was already understood was not necessary.
Yes, but the question is not what specific phrase is used but the underlying concept.
In the linked article in the OP it says “the pilot does not issue orders directly to the helmsman or engine room” In this view the OOW can give orders directly to the helmsman but the pilot cannot.
That’s the issue, not what this direct control is called or how formal the turnover is.
KC,
I would respectfully disagree with this particular view expressed in the OP link.
In my personal professional experience I always established a very direct relationship with the helmsman. Unchecked short term wrong way helms in my port were a recipe for disaster. Following the MPX with the Master and duty officer I would make a point of greeting the helmsman reminding him/her to always monitor the RAI. My direct helm orders were backed up with an arm pointing either to port or starboard…….a direct relationship with the helmsman. The bridge team would repeat my orders and hopefully always check the RAI. The orders were not given via the bridge team.
EDIT: I will never forget the occasion when I ordered starboard 20 and pointed to port. The helmsman immediately queried me with a “Sir?” Clearly, I identified that fatigue had set in and I needed to go up a gear. I immediately thanked and commended the helmsman. This was not picked up by the bridge team.
To be clear, I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m pointing out what it says, or it least my interpretation of what it says.
There are multiple inputs to this discussion from pilots and ship’s crew saying the opposite. The pilot DOES directly issue orders to the helmsman - usually from the moment they step on the bridge - even before the pilot master exchange in most cases. A competent pilot will know before boarding what the traffic situation is and other pertinent information. Often the pilot boat has given instructions to the inbound ship for course and speed to make a lee for a safe boarding. These are usually not the course and speed necessary to enter the channel. My first obligation after a brief welcome to the captain was to issue orders to come to a proper course and speed. At the same time I would communicate to other vessels in the vicinity by radio what our intentions were. This served the secondary purpose of letting the other pilots know that they would be meeting a pilot and not someone from the ship who may not be familiar with local conditions. All this within the first minutes on the bridge. That is accepted practice in a busy port with heavy traffic.
if you had ever boarded a 250m tanker loaded to 44’ and found that the rudder was hard left and the ship was performing a large circle scattering inbound and outbound traffic and the captain was drunk in his chair, early assesment and control would be your first priority too - regardless of what was written in some book.
Having followed this discussion with it’s arguments about semantics as well as ‘who is in charge when’ I am ever so grateful I chose engineering. 
I fully understand your position. I was indeed fortunate or lucky to survive 55 years at sea both in the navy and the merchant navy without confusion.
So the confusion caused by the use of the term “CONN” is mainly a US-thing. Probably because it has “migrated” from the US Navy to the US merchant marine, but is less used by non-US seafarers.
It does NOT appear in International Maritime Laws, nor in domestic rules and regulation in other countries.
So it is not much of a problem outside the US maritime environment.
tengineer1,
Human factors can be very challenging at times.
Herr Jughead.
You have explained the basics regarding navy ship in your previous. I understand it comes from your Navy experience. Your current experience is tall ships. Have been searching the forum to figure your command experience on commericial cargo ships . Could not find any.
But there are at least two most important things, You and some here simply totally ignored , what most probably is due to your and their unique experiences in different environments . Skill gaps lets leave for now.
So your description of OOW actions on the merchantmen is missing some details .
Immagine you have 3 nav officers and each coming from different country with different nautical/navy cultures . Think about that and consider the word " ambiquity" which may be the cause for confusion , misunderstanding , thus at least theoretically lead to an accident .
I had an incident - not an accident but it led to revision of SMS procedures after presentation of my full report and investigation of a near miss .
My newly joined OOW was coming from the country, where merchant and naval traditions , customs, considered master entering the bridge for whatever purposes( FOR COFFE OR A CHAT) and without any word as taking the con by default.
All ended well but SMS procedures were changed and required the master to announce clearly his intentions to take the con and this event was required to be logged. Simple as that. Same with passing the conn back to OOW. I think , that in my environment where i have my experiences it makes sense.
So now let me tell you about this simple OOW, on this stupid, uncomplicated merchantmen, moving allong straight lines and doing some simple things with the autopilot.
They are really dangerous slow moving cows those merchantmen, as per my fading memeory they managed to eliminate two navy destroyers or corvettes and damage one aircraft carrier.
All manned by the super duper trained navy boys doing a lot of complicated things, conning this or conning that or something else a merchantmen can not even possibly immagine let alone understand.
I read somewhere here a fairly accurate description and listened to the voice record . Impressive.
" NAVIGATION ON THE EDGE OF CHAOS. "
So the simple , Officer of the Watch (OOW) is not only expected to conn but also to take any action during his watch, as he is legally accountable for the immediate safety of the ship, crew, and cargo.
Even when the Master is absent, the OOW acts as the Master’s representative. Under international maritime law (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW)) and COLREGS,
The duties of the OOW in the Master’s absence include:
Prioritizing Safety Without Delay:
The OOW must take immediate, independent action for the ship’s safety if circumstances require it, without waiting to consult the Master.
Complying with Regulations & SMS procedures :
The OOW is required to follow the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) to avoid hazards and stay clear of other vessels. ( this may apply to conning - direction & velocity)
Following Standing Orders:
The OOW must rigorously adhere to the Master’s Standing Orders, which establish exactly when the Master must be called to the bridge.
Notifying the Captain:
In emergencies (e.g., collisions, flooding, fires) or during conditions like sudden restricted visibility, heavy traffic, or steering malfunctions, the OOW must notify the Master immediately.
Even if the Master arrives on the bridge, the OOW remains directly responsible for managing the watch and executing Bridge Procedures until the Master explicitly communicates that he has officially assumed
COMMAND!!! of the situation leaving the conn or not to OOW
Pls be so kind and study legal responsibilities of the OOW under IMO Resolutions governing watchkeeping before making bold statements about the simplicity of adjusting the autopilot while following a straight or zig zag lines.
Pls be informed that nowadays OOW may even forget about adjusting the autopilot having track control at his disposal.
LASTLY.
The example below may be extreme but not unlikely .
Can you imagine master and chief mate getting stuck in the inspected ballast tank while inspecting the damage and gathering relevant /required documentation.?
2nd mate is on watch and has the con doing his "simple " things , the fire breaks out in a container close to accommodation, or there is a spill of IMDG cargo on deck or man overboard. Just to mention some scenarios off the cuff.
So stay assured, that all actions expected to be taken by the 2nd mate who has the con are also
COMMAND actions
untill relieved by superior officer ( Master /chief mate) .
But what if they are stuck for good in the tank ?? Any advise ???
BTW
The topic here is:
Hence I am not sure how naval experiences and custom , however interesting
fit here. Merchantmen fall under a different legal scrutiny or department last time I heard.
Have a great day.
Keep wondering.
Meantime many here have different experiences. Mine is that I never ever heard the pilot in any place/port of the world ( not only USA ) what seems to some the only world, saying : I advise you to go to port 10 or to hard port or I advise you or my advise is to hit full astern.
And almost always in one form or another, when my update from pilot was finished and he was about to leave the bridge i heard " so capt the conn is yours or she is all yours.
On the bridge of my ship Mr.Pilot , entering the port , leaving or not , with pilot or not i decide what is or what is not necessary or appropriate or polite.
If in doubt pls check out the flipside of the card i am stamping with ships stamp and signing .
So if i tell You Herr OneEighteen after handshake and all this PMX blah blah , that you have the conn or she is all yours Mr.Pilot , you will be so offended/shocked or consider me under the influence and alarm whomever you alarm in such situation.
Will you stop the ship and request the pilot change as the master offended you or shocked with his formalistic style?
Or will you give me a lecture on acceptable manners in your neck of the woods.
Well Mr.Pilot . The good thing Herr OneEighteen is , we did not meet.
I took my dog for a walk this morning to our local cafe and noticed this T-shirt on the individual at the adjacent table……..
Allow me to share the message…..
CHAOS Vs CONTROL.
CHAOS= Chaos is what we have lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad name.
CONTROL= it is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego!
I don’t have any. So what? Just ask, I’ll tell you. At least my bio here describes the full length of my professional nautical experience unlike just about everybody else who seem shy about that.
I haven’t ignored anything. The discussion is entirely based on the difference between an officer having the con and any other form of command be it Master, OOW or otherwise.
Both are excruciatingly simple concepts and, for the life of me, I cannot see what all the fuss is about. I simply mentioned that the con is a formal concept in my naval experience and it is formally handed over from one to another. In my tall ships experience it is less used but we don’t suffer by that loss.
I’m not saying what others should do. Do what you want. And stop your long, boring, highly referenced diatribes about nothing. Any OOW anywhere has lots of responsibility and must exercise it. End of story. I couldn’t care less who gets stuck in a tank. Why does that matter?
How the bridge team typically operates with a pilot aboard is not in dispute. The pilot gives helm and engine orders directly to the crew, no debate there.
If, on the other hand, the captain informs the pilot that control of the helm and engine remains with the master or OOW what then?
What happens in the case where this is how the bridge team operates?
Pilot provides professional advice (courses, speeds, maneuvering).
Pilot does not issue helm/engine commands directly but communicates to Master/OOW.
Master/OOW verifies, authorizes, and conveys instructions to the crew per SMS.
KC,
This inherently occurs on every Pilotage. For example……for an inward Pilotage and on approach to the berth both the Master and Pilot migrate out to the bridge wing. Helm and engine orders are given to the Master from the Pilot, the Master conveys this order, via handheld UHF, to the OOW who is standing at the wheelhouse door who in turn either instructs the helmsman or reactivates the ME telegraph. The loop is closed via monitoring the bridge wing indicators.
Relaying helm and engine orders, whilst inside the WH, via the Master/OOW in my experience is a nonsense and would be unworkable.
Thank You for your kindness and yet i read yours Sir below:
You surely know " walk the talk " and You thought me a lot about ad hominem, ad personam and logical falacies as I followed your post for years. Absolutely fantastic on all issues . No kidding.
Not all share your subjective opinion .
But at least we agree on " what all the fuss is about " .
But the author of the post and the author of the blog and the video want to know something what other may not grasp fully. Who knows? .
Let the show go on . I do not see any problem except one here , that some consider their experience more unique and more valid then experiences of others and some have no practical experience but have an opinion .But it is not a problem but minor irritation. Suggest to read some old closed and open threads on the issue . Great reading .
Remind me what references are for.?
May be on PM not to pollute this absolutely exciting thread.
Have a great day.
above is valid when all my automation fails .
Otherwise we use this on the bridge wing after migration and control transfer of all tools from bridge console to wing console where verification is available for both master and pilot to see. Chief mate assists for training purposes only and in easy places is given a chance to play with the toys under Pilot/Master supervision.
Just saying.
That is how it WAS (probably still IS on a lot of ships).
Today many ships have Bridge Wing Controls:
Many have enclosed Bridge Wings as well:
With control panels on each side:
There may even be a Joystick to simplify the process even further:
VERY different from the bridge layout in the “good ol’ days”:
Absolute rubbish. I worked in a port with an annual throughput of 95% bulk/ 5% general. NONE of the bulk fleet were fitted with BW consoles and approximately 20% of the general fleet were. The majority of the bulk fleet was new tonnage and built to a price. Many were not fitted with lifts…….even the capesize vessels.
We export minerals in Australia……bulk minerals and lots of it.