Want to make clear, have no animosity towards pilots or their pay. As a young and older pup, most,not all shared their knowledge. Was particularly fond of the young sailors from WW2 that became pilots. Most are gone now, but what a great experience to learn from them and gobsmacked by the stories they recanted. Enjoyed the Federal pilots in the river,very professional. The pilots there that handled tugs early on and the guys that handled the long tows on our massive river system get a hats off. They didn’t get a pass because they were someones relative. There may have been a few, but earned it.
1 Like
What do the Bar pilots make? Same as Crescent? Crescent pilots need two basic headings, and a turn into NOLA, but I am sure the stress on a 26 year old pilot must be unbearable.
Bar Pilots make about the same annual money as the Crescent Pilots do now, with no rate increase requests on the horizon. And while their route is much shorter, they only have 45 Bar Pilots.
As it seems according to this information, for compulsory pilotage the role of the pilot isn’t advisory. It’s possible that by damage caused by the pilot’s actions that nevertheless the captain is end responsible. I understand that there also are differences in ruling in the various states. Generally speaking is the master accountable to the flag state for his actions and represents the shipowner’s interests. The pilot is accountable to the local pilotage authority and must take into consideration the Port States interest in maritime safety.
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.
The master, in the end, is most always held accountable. The shackles can be heavy, no matter what the cause.
As of last summer the San Francisco Bar Pilots Assoc had two openings in the trainee program. In theory candidates are not ranked by nepotism: http://sfbarpilots.com/become-a-pilot/
From this link:
Confusing the issue on checks and balances in the relationship is the mistaken perception that the pilot is aboard in an advisory capacity. This is not true in actual practice in pilotage waters or in the law as applied in North America. The pilot “conducting” the ship gives all the directions concerning the ships movement and it is the master who may advise the pilot as to the capabilities of the ship or its equipment or crew. If the master was actually giving the directions with the pilot’s advice the ship would not be under pilotage and in compliance with the local laws (11).
The distinction is important because if the pilot were merely an advisor whose assessment could be accepted or rejected at will he could not fulfil his role as an independent judge of acceptable risks. He might be persuaded to go along contrary to his personal judgment under the belief that the master would have the final or ultimate responsibility for accepting the pilot’s advice in the event of an accident.
Although no American legal decision has ever held that compulsory pilotage was advisory in nature, confusion on this issue could undermine the pilot’s perception of his role. The “pilot as advisor” myth persists reinforced by the entry in some log books “Proceeding to master’s orders and pilots advice” that could have its basis outside our legal system in some decisions of the courts in Continental Europe (12).
The entry doesn’t change our local laws in North America or confuse our courts after a casualty as to the actual relationship, but it may cloud the issue on the bridge as to responsibility and accountability between master and pilot.
The law being practical and realistic recognizes that situations could arise where the master would be justified in displacing a compulsory pilot and court decisions dealing with the issue have developed guidance. If the pilot is manifestly incompetent, or is intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated, or if the pilot’s actions are placing the ship in dear and imminent danger the Master can intervene and if the safety of the ship is in jeopardy he has a duty to intervene (13).
The “problem” is that, in certain areas, the pilotage authorities don’t take any action against a pilot even when it’s clearly warranted.
Did anything ever happen to the NOBRA pilot who smacked a ship into the I-10 bridge in Baton Rouge while topping around off Apex? Not only did he make a large mistake in judgment, he then proceeded to pull every bit of BS out of his ass to the NTSB to try and shift the blame elsewhere, including the tug and ship’s master (it’s all in the NTSB report). Even other NOBRA pilots told investigators that they would never turn a ship right off that dock. AFAIK, whatever board oversees NOBRA didn’t do a thing.
Out on the west coast, an SF pilot had his license suspended for not reporting a grounding on a ship he was piloting down the San Joaquin river. Such groundings are not super unusual there and usually result in no damage and no needed tug assistance so the USCG cleared them to continue. Unfortunately for this pilot, the SF Pilotage Board of Commissioners also requires notification of such instances and he failed to do so and was hit with, IIRC, a 30-day suspension.
Take these two instances and add up which was the greater threat to safety of shipping, the public and the environment (which is what compulsory pilotage is supposed to mitigate).
Apples and oranges I guess…
1 Like
NTSB has three recent investigations/reports finding Pilots (NOBRA) at fault on the Miss River. To my knowledge, none of the Pilots had any actions or suspensions taken against them:
Feb 2016 - NORDBAY - Struck a moored dock - Distracted pilot - 6 million in damages
April 2018 - SHANDONG FU EN - Struck a dock - Poor piloting - 6 million in damages
June 2019 - DANK SILVER - Struck Sunshine Bridge - Poor piloting - $ #.5 million in damages.
And these are just the NTSB investigations. There have been far more accidents/incidents, but most are just swept under the rug. Reforms wont happen in both the selection process and the ongoing training process unless there is loss or life or a major oil/chemical spill.
1 Like
Was there ever a NTSB report about the Crowley ship that did all that damage?
To my knowledge, they are not asking for a raise, but just asking for more money to make more pilots. They want to go from 128 to 150 and with that comes a need for more money in order to sustain the previous wage. I could be wrong but that’s what I heard from a previous NOBRA pilot
They are most definitely requesting a raise: 527k avg annual pay to 697K avg annual pay. You can go to the LA Pilot Fee commission website and its all public knowledge. And also increase # of pilots from 122 to 150. So, based upon their figures, annual cost to shipping industry as follows:
2019 - 122 pilots @ 527k per year = 64,290,000
Future - 150 pilots @ 697k per year = 104,550,000
Crescent pilots avg 153 turns/movements per pilot in 2017, 149 in 2018, 138 in 2019 and with traffic down another 6% in 2020, i am sure the 2020 figure will be lower than 2019.
We, or rather our captain once had a serious run-in with a Mississippi pilot while we were sailing between New Orleans and our destination Good Hope at 125.6 AHP. The captain criticized the pilot as we sailed in his opinion much too close to the starboard riverbank and we already had touched the shallows a couple of times. The ship then heeled a few degrees. It is all soft mud but anything can be lying lurking in the mud that could damage the hull. It was strange that the only response the pilot gave was saying: Captain can you hear them ‘boyds’ (birds) singing in the woods? Yes, the woods were near enough…
To cut the story short, after the next even larger heel the captain got really mad and accused him of being either incompetent or drunk. The pilot shouted back and at a certain moment he left the bridge and went downstairs on deck. Normal procedure in such a case would be to anchor and wait for a replacement pilot but safe anchoring in all this mud was considered impossible. No tugboat yet and in these days no communication with the shore so the captain decided, seen the circumstances, to push on.
He had been the most senior Rotterdam harbour pilot before, berthing the large passengers ships. The Harbour Master in Rotterdam had always been a navy man, no knowledge about commercial shipping and no connections in that world but that seemed to be a plus. Our captain, as the most senior, was promised to get the job this time but the old boys network had won again and another navy man was once more appointed. He then quit, which caused a shock wave under his colleagues and went to sea again, something that he had never expected.
Berthing at Good Hope was for him a simple thing. With the current on the bow he proceeded slowly to the berth and moored the ship. Easy peasy. The tugboat nearby, without instructions, didn’t know what to do and circled around. The plant manager told the captain not to complain because you never can win, pilots are a protected species he said. Already in these days. It seems things haven’t changed much since then.
4 Likes
The legislature won’t do anything, because the pilot assoc contributes to the campaigns of the politician located deep in the state far from the river and doesn’t care one way or the other.