Is the Master’s Authority Being Misunderstood?

[Handspake]

@Hogsnort

The bow thruster controls consisted of 7 push buttons, three controlling the force in each direction with a central stop, all buttons identical.

In bright sunlight the illumination was pitiful and you had to bend down shading the controls to confirm the setting when I would have preferred to keep visual contact with my surrounding

It had to be before the word ERGONOMIC was invented.

According to some opinions here it looks that bridge wing controls are highly unpopular and unwanted. Kind of disturbing and unwanted technology distracting the nautical focus, breaking the intimate contact /relation with the helmsman and situational awareness of highly concentrated on docking masters.

So concentrated that not only operating but even looking and cursory glances at this highly complex and complicated systems, may be dangerous to ship safety and jeopardise the docking act ,that happens with speeds ca 0.5- 1.5 knots. Hope i am in the ballpark.
The pics of this unwanted tools were provided by Herr Bugge in earlier post and i have taken the liberty to insert another one with sb looking like Schettino Crettino very relaxed looking and carresing the machinery fondly.

Having said that i also took the liberty by inserting 3 more pictures of horrifying equipment used in other industry by captains.

Makes me wonder how those captains are docking…errr ..landing their flying monsters with 200-180 kts and have time to do other things and are not distracted .Must be some geniuses. Betas me . May be some pilots/aviators here will chip in if on line ???

Regarding switchover from master stn to bridge wings and doing this may be hundreds of times it looked as follows:

When stopped alongside : BT midship , pressed one button Port/Stb wing what caused control light to blink on slave unit , pressed one button on the wing to confirm and tested to port and stb. DONE

Helm on the main steering console a button or switch pressed or turned by helmsman or OOW , tested on the wing bridge control to port /stb .DONE

Telegraph: visual confirmation that main and wing unit handles are in the same position STOP , hit the button on the master stn and confirm on the slave. Test and done .

Same procedure when underway with the extraordinary caution to have the unit ( master or slave) aligned with each other, before transferring command back and forth. Really not a rocket science. Break downs happen of course but then we go back to old tested ways . Transfer from port to stb and vice versa always required to go via master stn first . Have not experienced direct switchovers but may be such exist. Needless to say that practicing makes perfect.

Sb said this is becoming goofy. I agree.

[Handspake]

Hope i will be allowed to continue.
Basically @NWWaterman summation satisfied my curiosity and i must say i have seen similar position but could not remember where, especially regarding the legal issues and so called American view of pilotage , which is different then continental.

Cockpits and 200 kts aside, the bridge wing control unit is IMO the closest thing to cockpit - an idea which is somewhat forcefully imported from planes to ship bridges. I am not going to argue about the pros and cons of such system . But i liked that particullar system much more then traditional , which indeed reduces the " single person " error but is not immune to other errors.

But it just hit me that I have seen somewhere on this forum the speech of one of the Pilot Associacion Big Fish . Unfortunately the proliferation of threads and cloning, new threads when old could be used , makes research extremely frustrating but manageble with a huge waste of my time .

So i have found it on the web. And my question to @NaveCeleste and Capt. @Raghu_Sharma is: have they seen the speech before posting here as per my subjective opinion it was like putting a stick into a hornets nest.

The link to the speech is here :

article1228231036_0.pdf

.“”" Although from the shipowner / master viewpoint pilotage is a service that protects the ship from the hazards of the port, from the Ports States perspective pilotage exists to protect the ports from the hazards of the ship. Since the ship is entering the territorial waters of the Port State and accepts their sovereign jurisdiction as a condition of entry, it is the Port State that establishes the relationships between the shipowner / master and the pilot by their laws and policies.

Depending upon the degree of control the Port State believes is appropriate, pilotage may vary from optional voluntary pilotage that is advisory in nature to compulsory pilotage where the responsibility for the direction and control of navigation is placed upon the pilot. “”"

Obviously they do not want to be Owners servants and instead prefer to be :

1st -state servant and protector and 2nd -the controller of the danger , which is a ship paying a commercial visit. I am not sure then what the back side of pilot ticket is for and what the extremely tiny print means .

I am afraid that view expressed in the article as well as in the videoclip and the view of Capt. George A. Quick can not be bridged . But it is my opinion. Pls note the use of the wording " I issue commands " instead of " I issue orders " in @NWWaterman comments . I am not a native speaker but last time i checked different vocabularies , these two words are not having exact same meaning.
Having said that i am taking the opportunity to insert other links that some may find interesting .

Pilot Liability

Vessel on Master’s orders and Pilot’s advice - Solent Marine Consultants

Have a great day.

[Kennebec_Captain]

A strong practical argument for the captain keeping the conn would be more convincing than a legalistic one.

The bridge team and the pilot’s roles overlap in many ways but there needs to be different perspectives / responsibilities to increase the odds of catching mismatches.

Does the process of the captain converting pilot’s advice to commands increase situational awareness or would it increase the bridge team’s workload?

[texastanker]

@NWWaterman

The skill gap will never be closed on that because the only way you build it is to do it over and over and over again. I probably do more maneuvers in a single watch than a master may do in an entire 6-month contract. That’s why piloting is a specialized skill for each district.

I agree 100 pct, and a point of clarity - my point was never to say the Master pilot shiphandling gap could or should close 100 pct, My point was. and remains, Masters should work to narrow it. This is doable, and more so a profesional responsiblilty and I continue to stand by that point.

[Raghu_Sharma]

First of all, thank you to @NaveCeleste for featuring my article here. The discussion became far more detailed than I expected, and I appreciate that.

Thanks also to @NWWaterman, @Handspake and others who added references and professional views. Some comments were sharp, but that is fair enough. Pilotage, command, conduct of navigation, and legal responsibility are not simple subjects, and they are often mixed together too casually.

After reading the discussion and the references shared, I have refined the article wording for better legal and operational precision. The central point remains unchanged.

Pilotage law is jurisdiction-specific. An IMPA paper, club circular, consultant article, or association view may be useful background, but it is not the law. The starting point must be the applicable statute, pilotage directions, canal rules where relevant, and case law of the port state concerned.

My position is simple. A pilot may, depending on local law and port practice, have conduct, direction, or control of navigation. But that is not the same thing as a transfer of command of the vessel from the Master.

The Master’s continuing responsibility, the bridge team’s duty to monitor, and the duty to intervene if the vessel is being placed in danger do not disappear merely because a pilot is on board. IMO A.960 also keeps that distinction clear by stating that the presence of a pilot does not relieve the Master or OOW of their duties and obligations for the safety of the ship.

That was the intended point of the article. The wording has now been tightened to reflect that distinction more clearly.

Thanks again for the discussion. For anyone interested in more shipboard, legal, and operational maritime analysis from a Master’s perspective, the article is on DeepDraft: thedeepdraft.com

[Slick_cam1]

Been on plenty of ships, merchant and naval, where there was full bridge wing control but for whatever reason the Captain preferred to yell the commands to the mate/helmsman standing inside the bridge, or using his handheld radio. Every time I asked if we could use the bridge wing controls, was told they preferred not to. I have received several reasons. Some said they didn’t trust the bridge wing controls or they were broken. Some said they didn’t want to risk the handover from bridgewing to centerline control or vice versa during the maneuver. Some said they just preferred to do it the old fashioned way.

That being said, some Masters will use them, and I much prefer it. We can watch the RAI and tach right there on the bridgewing and know if we are getting what we want. (Assuming these aren’t also broken) Had plenty of times seen the helm turned the wrong way, had the EOT engaged the wrong direction, etc by the crew in the wheelhouse. And I’ve seen them fumble the commands, mumble or mishear the commands, etc. So I certainly enjoy getting the use the bridge wing controls when possible. I’ve never once had the Captain go the wrong way with the rudder, the EOT, or the thrusters when he’s on the bridge wing with me using the controls. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but I’ve never seen it happen.

[Handspake]

Alias @NaveCeleste

cc: Captain. @Raghu_Sharma

Moin moin meine Herren.

ITEM 1.

Have received system message, that the topic was granted " solution" attribute . Nothing unusual isn’t it?

But it is, because it has been solved according to judgement of " impartial ", "unbiased " , "neutral ", " professional " alias @jbtam99 aka Batman99 granted

MODERATOR rights, privileges, immunities , not to mention duties and obligations , holding proudly the badge of a LEADER!!.

All here must know what a leader means. Am i right?

The solution was under last @NWWaterman very polite and meritorious reply of a PROFESSIONAL PILOT to my queries , who does not need to show his resume . His words are telling me VOLUMES.

And some users were extatic about it, loving it!! Peer reviewed it and praised it @OneEighteen Is the Master’s Authority Being Misunderstood? - #101 by OneEighteen

It is unfair.

What i find odd is that batman99 solution was OVERRIDEN by you , a holder of the user BASIC rights.

IT is irrelevant to judge ,what sollution is better as it is subjective,

What is relevant to me is that we are back in square one of your excellent thread COMMAND /CONTROL and CONN… but not in shipping. Pic below.

By above evidence I think i have a valid question: who is in command here. ?

It seems to me you have an overriding AUTHORITY , what i do not mind of course as i am only 37 days here.

I am asking because i have read back to back DISCOURSE manual and there is no magic or woodu there.

But here is i am afraid.
≈========

ITEM 2

Are you interested to continue in order to finalize and wrap up THE PANAMA CANAL ISSUE, what NONE of the participating users claiming cognisance of the issue ,has addressed satisfactorily in this thread , let alone proven at least by description of important events associated with Panama Canal transit through locs . TRANSIT of a commercial , laden cargo vessel , flying other flag then US, and under command , which has never been released, never delegated and never abandoned by a NON- US master during transit in accordance of APC rules and Panama laws not to mention different SMS of different management’s und FLAGS

I regret to observe that my request for some definitions was completely ignored. Of course it was addressed to all users , so may be that was the reason.

Thank you @NaveCeleste for your attention into this matter.

Censors of this forum are herewith informed that I have saved in pdf, the whole thread including my last to prevent moderators content manipulation and other tampering with evidence.

And I am still waiting for Herr K.C to assign or indicate proper, dedicated channel/ thread , where some moderation and other forum issues can be discussed by the aggrieved user IN PUBLIC.

[Handspake]

Will you be so kind Herr AKBJR to answer my question or i shall forget about it. Is the Master’s Authority Being Misunderstood? - #93 by Handspake

Have a great day.

[AKBJR]

I presented it as I did here in this thread.

[Handspake]

@NWWaterman

The other possibility is that the transfer of control to a wing station can be made more complicated if there are active inputs on the devices, vs everything being zeroed out/midship/stopped. I try to do it while in that state, but sometimes it’s just not possible. More than one incident or Near Miss has occurred during a botched transfer like this and since they’re typically happening on a final approach, the margin for error is not very big.

Sir.

Your above own observations/experiences, have been noted.

As has been described in my post # 101 there is nothing complicated in the transfer of control, in this case M/E control from master to slave stn and vice versa.

M/E control items " speed vector" und indicators fall under SOLAS chapter and is an item under the perview of Class - periodic , at owners request and continuous obligation of owners/technical management to maintain it in good working condition and obligation to report to Class malfunctions despite existing redundancy ( old fashioned and tested system).

The transfer is simple and follows similar logic and technical solutions as transfer of M/E control from bridge to ECR not under emcy conditions. The handles of both telegraphs should be aligned in same position when under way. I will not elaborate more as engineers can explain it better and more competently.

That said you may have noticed in some threads that there were some very rigorous PSC campaigns targeting ships regarding the deck department profficiencies in practical use of their famous toy called ECDIS, which is worshiped like new God or deity.

Given the fact they (navigators) are given control and use of ME via bridge control option ,they should be equally proficient if not more in the practical use and operation of an item, that is very important for safety of navigation, especially in the areas where safety margins are minimal.

The wing bridge controls were not built for show off or fancy so you and master can make photos , they were installed for a purpose . They were not fitted there to decrease the safety of navigation while docking but to increase it. Simple as that.

So my advise if I may is , that next time you hear from a master, that the things are defficient/ broken or whatever bs he delivers for your perusal , just tip USCG technical departmen in the region and let them verify veracity of the master declaration and it will give them a chance to thoroughly check proficiency of all deck department in the competent use of the system.

The system if installed must be ready for use and master /Cheng duty is to fix it and if they can not ,report and have a record of reporting it to their superiors . All the rest then will fall under manager/class/ flag decision what to do about it.

Have a great day

============

REM(off topic) : have noticed via system banner , while writing this post , that my editor is opened in another window. ( 3- 4 times).

I did not do it as I have been continously editing in one window. Wonder who did it? woodoo? or some peep show addict? )