National Academies Press: OpenBook

Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting (1994)

Chapter: PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION

« Previous: PILOTING PRACTICES
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION." National Research Council. 1994. Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2055.
×
Page 158

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Pilotage Administration SUMMARY Pilotage in the United States serves both state and federal interests. Over- all, the pilotage systems exhibit the capability to produce pilots who are profes- sional and competent. However, the current approach is (1) complicated, (2) relies extensively on unpublished professional guidelines and standards, (3) ex- hibits variability in quality control over professional development, and (4) relies on informal means for detection and correction of weal<nesses in individual per- formance before these deficiencies become causal factors in marine accidents. Jurisdiction is based on factors other than navigation and safety needs. There are no nationally accepted guidelines or baseline standards for the selection, training, licensing, oversight, and discipline of pilots or for the expertise and representa- tic~n calf interests that would assist pilotage boards or government offices in ad- ministering official oversight. Such guidelines and standards are essential bench- marks for cognizant pilotage authorities in ensuring the adequacy of federal, state, and local pilotage for vessels in foreign trade as well as coastwise trade. The results are gaps in coverage; continuing controversy over the economics, effec- tiveness, and accountability of pilotage; and duplication of staff end other costs at federal and state levels. There are also gaps in official oversight and pilot account- ability for harbor transits and docicing evolutions involving many ships in foreign trade, although these gaps do not by themselves equate to shortcomings in safety performance. In general, federal pilotage rules govern the practice of piloting by requir- ing individuals to acquire licenses to operate certain U.S.-flag vessels in coastwise trade. The federal approach exhibits some important strengths a nationwide 99

100 MINDING THE HELM infrastructure, national policies, well-defined entry-level requirements for sea service and route repetition, consistent licensing and disciplinary processes, and a formal test of knowledge. But federal pilotage also lacics many central features of a comprehensive pilotage system, notably quality control for professional de- velopment, tests of practical piloting skills, requirements for emergency shiphan- dling training or continuing professional development, and official oversight of performance (except for discipline after a marine accident). Federal pilotage rules enable masters and mates to pilot their own vessels. These rules are not directed toward developing pilots as highly skilled, independent professional experts; they are intended to permit pilotage by vessel officers. The system relies on marlcet forces, including the employment, professional development, and assignment practices of employers, to achieve professional competency and proficiency. Masters or mates holding a federal pilotage credential may navigate any coast- wise vessel within license limitations under any conditions, regardless of prior service aboard that vessel or vessels of a similar class, the hazards involved, or real recency of service on the route. States generally regulate the practice of piloting through measures that influence business activities as well as through licensing of individual practitio- ners; actual measures vary by pilotage jurisdiction. Most state pilotage systems exhibit a broad range of the central features of a comprehensive pilotage system, although none has all these features. There is also great variability in system content and application of features. A few state pilotage systems lack most of the features necessary to make them comprehensive. While a small number of pilot systems include a formal, rigorous professional development regime, most rely on apprenticeships guided by informal professional development and evaluation criteria to develop necessary theoretical and local knowledge and shiphandling skills. With few exceptions, continuing professional development requirements have not been established, but a growing number of state pilot associations are voluntarily coordinating continuing training opportunities for some members. No state pilotage system has formal requirements for emergency shiphandling training, nor are there formal efforts to detect problems in pilot performance before they become an issue in marine accidents. There is no quantitative proof of widespread failure of pilots to meet safety standards. The varying completeness in existing federal and state pilotage systems with respect to features associated with a complete pilotage system, coupled with anecdotal evidence, nevertheless reveal opportunities for both lo- cal and systemic improvement in pilotage. A new synergism involving both state and federal interests is feasible and essential for improving pilot development, enhancing pilot proficiency, and enabling pilots to perform their critical roles effectively in changing bridge resource conditions. A coordinated approach de- signed to support pilot performance would enhance the marine pilot's role as an important line of defense against substandard ships, officers, and crews. A nation- al program could be mounted to assist in the consistent application of standards

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 101 of the profession, enhancing the integrity and accountability of pilotage systems while continuing to provide the span of port-level control that is necessary to accommodate local operating conditions and to effectively oversee provision of pilotage services. The effort could encompass: tion; · improving public confidence and involvement in pilotage administra · assuring jurisdiction over individuals piloting all vessels; · closing gaps in requirements and accountability in pilotage systems; · increasing professional development requirements for all pilots; · establishing a national entry-level standard for all pilots (earned through either an apprentice program or marine service); · establishing a means to validate professional competence as an ele- ment of professional licensing; establishing requirements for development of emergency shiphandling skills and continuing professional development; · consolidating pilotage into a single system for each port region with both local and national oversight; and · developing organizational structures necessary for effective gover . nance. INTRODUCTION With the discussion of piloting practices and the summary of the central features of a complete pilotage system as a backdrop, this chapter examines pilotage administration. The chapter opens with a description and analysis of the professional regulation of pilots. Federal pilotage for coastwise vessels and state pilotage for foreign trade vessels are then assessed by comparison with the com- plete pilotage model. Coast Guard resources for administering federal pilotage, an issue frequently brought to the committee's attention during the study, are addressed. Pilotage in the coastwise towing industry and pilotage for other cate- gories of commercial vessels are also examined. Lessons derived from reviews of pilotage systems for the Great Lakes, British Columbia, and selected Europe- an countries are presented. Finally, alternatives for improving piloting practices and pilotage administration are presented and discussed. Summaries of professional development requirements are provided in Ap- pendix F. There are no regulations that require pilotage for inland vessels, al- though their presence in pilotage waters complicates traffic patterns and can be a significant factor in vessel interactions. This is reported in the chapter; however, assessment of the effectiveness of pilotage in the inland navigation system was beyond the scope of this study.

102 MINDING THE HELM REGULATING PROFESSIONS AND PROFESSIONALS Professional regulation, as the term is used in this report (see Box 3-1), applies to both the profession and its practitioners. Professions are regulated principally through standards, requirements for licensed personnel to perform certain functions, rates or compensation scales, and other measures. Practitioners are regulated principally through measures, primarily licensing, that authorize an individual to practice a profession or specialty discipline within that profession. Professional regulation generally is accomplished at the state level. In the United States, each state has a department responsible for licensing and regula- tion of certain professions, such as the medical and legal professions. The de- partment may set its own standards, or it may adopt or rely upon accreditation boards or panels operated by professional trade associations that set standards for their profession or specific disciplines. Licensing for tradesmen such as elec- tricians and plumbers typically is accomplished at the municipal level. Not all practicing professionals may be required to obtain a license, but a license may be required to perform certain functions; for example, professional engineers must be licensed to sign and be responsible for construction plans. Generally, regulat- ing business practices is not the responsibility of a licensing department. For example, licensing authorities are normally not involved in rate setting for pro

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 103 Sessions, although this function may be performed by some other governmental entity, such as a rate commission. Thus, professional regulation ranges from self-regulation to voluntary certi- fication to formal licensing requirements. The full range occurs in piloting, al- though licensing by some official entity is customary. Where pilotage is required by the federal government, all individuals who pilot vessels are required to hold a license, although not a pilot's license in every instance. Where pilotage is regulated at the state level, all individuals who provide pilotage services are required to hold a pilot's license. A license does not ensure that an individual is trained or current in their profession or trade. Its credibility depends on how rigorous the licensing require- ment is and what standards are used. However, licensing provides at least one test or filter for competency. An alternative to licensing is professional registra- tion or certification. Sometimes, certification has been used as a means to estab- lish professional standards and requirements for credentials as an intermediate step toward formal professional regulation in the form of licensing (Anderson, 1992J. Although certification is by definition voluntary, sometimes possession of a valid certificate or other credential is mandatory for engaging in a profession or obtaining a license. For example, an individual must hold a valid Radar Ob- server's certificate from a Coast Guard-approved training facility in order to operate inspected vessels of 300 gross tons or more that are radar equipped (46 U.S.C. 15.815~. In contrast to broad-based licenses such as those issued for motor vehicle operations, pilot licenses are restricted, with credentials estab- lished for specific waterways, routes, and tonnages. The Coast Guard has pro- posed rules that would establish a similar requirement for automatic radar plot- ting aids (ARPA)~55 FR 8155~. The effectiveness of certification programs depends on the criteria that the applicant must meet, including expertise, experience, and peer review require- ments; the standards upon which the certification is based; and the credibility of the certifying organization. Voluntary certification (or accreditation) does not guarantee professional qualifications or competency. Effectiveness also depends upon the extent to which programs are accepted by practitioners and those they serve. Such programs do, however, indicate that someone or some organization has made an effort to obtain a specialty certification or accreditation and usually that there is a willingness to ascribe to a professional code of ethics (Anderson, 1992~. Airline pilots and mariners are notable exceptions to the state and local control of licensing. Public safety issues and the need to protect the integrity of the national airway system led to the creation of a national licensing program administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. Professional regulation of merchant mariners is a longstanding federal responsibility except for marine pilots, as described in this chapter. Only the federal government has the mission, resources, and enabling authority needed to administer licensing requirements .. ~. . ..

104 MINDING THE HELM for masters, mates, and vessel operators. A single federal license (with pilotage endorsements for local waters) precludes the need for multiple state-level licens- es. The federal pilot's license for vessels in coastwise trade is based on this concept. There are also federal interests in marine, public, and environmental safety that are served by professional regulation of merchant mariners at the national level. On the other hand, highly specialized, port-specific pilotage service requires expert knowledge of local operating environments and expert skills in the han- dling of a wide range of vessel types and sizes. Also, the volume of foreign trade can support only a limited number of local experts. Because of its local nature and the limited economic capacity to support local experts, pilotage fits the framework for professional regulation at the state or local level. The states also have a strong interest in marine, public, and environmental safety, and they are concerned about the economic contributions of waterborne commerce to local and regional economies. These considerations favor professional regulation of pilotage at the state or port level. Thus, in the United States, there is a dual system of pilotage administration for ports, waterways, and river systems supporting ship navigation, with federal regulation of coastwise pilotage and state regulation of pilotage for vessels in foreign trade. Whether this dual approach adequately satisfies both federal and state interests in marine safety is the focus of this chapter. FEDERAL REGULATION OF PILOTAGE Federal Pilotage Requirements Federal law requires that seagoing vessels in coastwise trade, including self- propelled vessels and tank barges that carry petroleum or hazardous cargoes, must be under the direction and control of a federally-licensed pilot when under- way in pilotage waters (46 U.S.C. 85023. Rules issued by the Coast Guard, the administrator of federal pilotage (Box 3-2), interpret this federal law to allow the master or mate of a vessel to act as its pilot if he or she has qualified as a pilot under those rules and has a pilotage endorsement on his or her officer's license. Therefore, owners of coastwise vessels may employ a ship's officer having the appropriate pilotage endorsement to navigate their vessels in pilotage waters. As an individual attached to the vessel and an employee of the shipowner, such an officer has a role that differs considerably from that of a pilot in the traditional sense of an independent expert. Piloting by masters or mates that leads to dam- age to their or another vessel can result in disciplinary action by their employers, as well as action against their licenses by the Coast Guard. Similar action may be taken if a vessel has been jeopardized without actual damage, if this information finds its way to employers or the Coast Guard.

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 105 Partly as a result of increased risk of liability associated with the Oil Pollu- tion Act of 1990 (OPA 90) and other legislation, masters or mates are increas- ingly less likely to act as pilots of their ships. Some shipping companies encour- age their masters and senior mates to obtain federal pilot's endorsements on their licenses to better prepare them to oversee services provided by independent ma- rine pilots. Where pilotage is required in the towing industry, it is usually pro- vided by a master, mate, or licensed operator. A small number of independent federal pilots-about 30 nationwide who are neither crew members nor company employees, offer their services locally to guide vessels on the pilotage waters for which they are qualified. They serve coastwise vessels in some mid-Atlantic ports from Maine to Virginia and in the lower Mississippi River. In most of these ports, these federal pilots compete for work with marine pilots from state pilot associations, who virtually all also hold federal licenses. Independent federal pilots are ineligible for foreign trade pilot- age, however, because they are unable to obtain state licenses; restrictions in state laws establish pilotage as a controlled-access profession, except in Con- necticut. The pilotage system in Connecticut is an open-entry system; the state has initiated steps to overhaul the system. Federal pilot's licenses or endorsements generally are required by state pi- lotage authorities or pilot associations as a prerequisite (or evidence of minimum competence) for persons entering state or pilot association training programs, and to meet legal requirements for providing service to coastwise seagoing ves- sels. In some cases, pilot apprentice programs are designed to satisfy service requirements for original federal pilot's licenses, as discussed later in this chap- ter.

106 MINDING THE HELM Waters and Vessels Subject to Federal Pilotage Coastwise seagoing vessels are required by federal law (46 U.S.C. 8502) to be under the direction and control of a licensed federal pilot at all times when underway in coastal waters and ports within the U.S. territorial sea (seaward to three miles offshore in most locations). Pilotage is required for in-port move- ments, as from anchorage to dock, as well as during docking and undocking evolutions. This mandate means that the master or a mate, in order to dock or undock the vessel, must hold a federal pilotage credential (license or endorse- ment) for that route. If neither the master nor mate hold the necessary credential, then an independent marine pilot must be engaged. Federal pilotage requirements apply to self-propelled vessels and also to tank barges built to carry oil or other hazardous cargoes, provided they are coast- wise seagoing vessels. Only about 13 percent of vessels with coastwise routes on their certificates of inspection are tankships or tank barges, although about 80 percent of coastwise cargo tonnage consists of petroleum and petroleum prod- ucts (MARAD, 19911. U.S.-flag vessels may be documented to engage in both coastwise (sailing under enrollment) and foreign (sailing under registry) trade, but federal pilotage rules apply only when the vessel is engaged in coastwise trade. The trade in which a vessel is engaged depends on cargo and destination rather than vessel flag. For U.S.-flag ships that can serve either trade, the distinc- tion between trades may become blurred because of changes in cargo. The Coast Guard reports that the agency is preparing a Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular that will provide specific guidance to the marine community and to Coast Guard personnel to assist in distinguishing between foreign and domestic trade. The definition of "coastwise seagoing" vessels has been controversial in some respects, owing to the limitations and ambiguities of the term. For exam- ple, some operating companies have urged that a vessel should be considered "seagoing" and subject to pilotage only if it is actually engaged in a voyage at sea. But the Coast Guard has said a federal pilot is required if the vessel is authorized by its Certificate of Inspection (COI) to go seaward of the boundary line (as defined by 46 CFR 7) regardless of the route of the particular voyage. However, a commercial vessel that is limited by its document to inland routes in bays, lakes, sounds, or rivers, and for which there are no pilotage requirements under present rules, may make extensive voyages between coastal ports-for example, from New York to Boston; from Philadelphia to Norfolk; throughout the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway system; and throughout Puget Sound. The vessel merely has to remain inside the boundary line for the entire voyage. For tank barges under tow of 10,000 gross tons or less and for small, self- propelled vessels, the Coast Guard has made an exception from the general pilotage requirement (46 CFR 15.8121. For these vessels, the master or mate of the vessel or the operator of the towboat may "act as" the pilot if a limited

~7 number of addidona1 requiromcuts ~c mcL Under Ls reguladons, 1hc Coas Ou~d docs no1 supervisc compliancc ~i1b 1hcsc requiremcnts, bu1 ~ m~ caL upOD 1hCSC iDdiVidu~lS 10 providc cvidcDcc of compliancc: gcDcraHy such rc- qucsts ~c madc ODly iD CODDCCdOD ~ith aD ~CCidCD1 iDVCSdg~doD. Pilota~c in hc 10~ing industry is discussed iD morc dc1ail l~cr iD 1his chaptcr. Fcdera1 law also authorizes 1hc Coas1 Ouard 10 roquirc a ~derally-UccDsod pilo1 OD ~Dy sclEpropcDcd vesscl cngaped io ~rcign ~adc iD U.S. ~1crs, if (and so long as) s1~1c la~ docs no1 roquirc ~ S1~1c-UccDScd pilo1 OD 1hC vOsscl a1 any dmc ~hcD ~ is under~ay iD pilotagc ~atcrs (Box 3-31. UD1d reccn11y,1hc Coas Ou~d has Do1 c~crcisod 1his authordy, aLhough ~ proviously 1hrcatcDcd 10 do so 10 inducc 1hc statc of orcgoD 10 imposc compulso~ pilotapc. ID July 1993,1hc Coas1 Gu~d proposed ~les 1ha1 ~ould closc somc cxisdDg g~s iD S1~C pHotapc ~r ~rcign 1radc vesscls by requidng a ~deraHy-Uccused pilo1 10 direc1 and control 1hc Davigadon of vesscls iD ~rcign 1radc 1h~ oporatc iD CC~8iD dCSigDa1- cd ~crs of Cab~mia, Ha~ah, Hassachuscus, Nc~ Yo~, and Nc~ Jcrsey (FR 38[130]:36914-369181. Coas1 Ou~d omcia~ havc iDdicated 1ha1 simil~ ~les m~ bc proposed ~r Cah~mia po~s ~horc ~atc pHo1 1iccuscs ~c D01 DO~ required. EVCD 1hough 1hc Coas1 Ou~d docs Do1 h~vc pHotapc govemiDg authod1y ovcr vosscls iD ~rcigD ~adc (c~ccp1 wherc a S181C has Do1 c~crcised judsdiction), hc Coas1 Ou~d can inOucDcc bs operadoD. Thc Coas1 Ouard has substantia 1 1 1d:pi1 i.ll ~illi.=I:# F6~11~1111~^S4~1 s~s~s~s~sss~s~s~s~sSis.~.Sss.ss~ss.s s.s s .. sisss sss ss~s~s~ss s sss s sss s ssss~s~s~ss ss! siss~ssis ss~ sis sss s sssis sisssisisss s sis sss s ss~s~s~ssiss~ssisisi~s~ss sSss~ss~ssss~ssssiss~s~ssisisssisssisisssisi~sssss~ssisssisssssssisiss~ Illlll~!~!~!~! I 111111lllllllllllllll^]ll~llllll~llll~sllll~llll~llll~/llllu~llll~lllll~#llll)~ll lll-~llllli#=llllll1 111111 1lllllllllllllll~lll~#lll#o~llllilll~llll~l~;lll-~llll~lllc~dlll~lllliLlll~llllll1 .~'I~I''IBI.I ~1 ~I~1~1

108 MINDING THE HELM authority, for example, under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended, to issue mandatory orders to all vessels concerning movement and operating conditions. Federal Licensing Requirements The Coast Guard is required by law to ensure that federal pilots have and maintain adequate knowledge and experience for Me waters and vessels on which Hey are authorized to serve. To help meet this obligation, the Coast Guard has extensive power to regulate the licensing of federal pilots. Under present regulations, an applicant must pass an examination after at least 36 months' service on board a vessel or vessels, including Wee months within the preceding three years, and at least 12 months operating on the class of waters for which pilotage is desired such as rivers, canals, or inland waters. Practical training in an apprenticeship program approved by the Coast Guard may be substituted for some or all of the required service. The pilot candidate must also have a Radar Observer's Certificate. The candidate must have com- pleted 12 to 20 round trips over the route sought to obtain an "original" license, the first marine license that is issued to an individual. A candidate already hold- ing a marine license must complete 8 to 15 round trips for a pilotage route endorsement on that license. Pilot candidates, including those already holding marine licenses, are not required to have experience conning a vessel, to have any prior service or train- ing as a pilot (unless in a Coast Guard-approved pilot apprenticeship program), or to demonstrate competence or proficiency as a pilot. Extra requirements for a .~ - . 2' - .' · ... .. .................... ................... ......... .................................. ...................... ............. .................. ... - ~.~.~,,.,,~.,,.~ ~~ c~ ,..,,....~... ....,...''' I'd " ......... .................. , ~ ' "' 'S . .,~. ,.~,.~ ~ i:,: ~ . ~ ................ ~ ................... .......................................... ........................................... .......................................... i. ~ :::: it. ... ~-~ .:::: ~ ~::~ ::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::. .. ~ ~:: ~ . ~....... = . ..^ .. . ~. ..~. = . ~. ~. ~.. 1 ~91~ 1~ i~l^~h : . ~.. .~ ~ ~.~ ... -

PILOTAGE ADMINISTMTION 109 specific port may be set by the local Coast Guard Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection (OCMI), but this is seldom done. That existing federal pilotage requirements represent entry-level criteria is widely recognized by marine pilots, docking masters, other mariners, shipping companies, and the towing industry. In practice, mariners seeking federal pilot- age credentials generally already have a marine license, and, by virtue of licens- ing criteria, practical experience. A deck officer aboard an oceangoing ship, for example, typically will have graduated from a maritime college and will have accumulated several years of nautical experience before qualifying for a pilotage endorsement. The more senior the marine license held, the more experience will have been accumulated. Many mariners seeking pilotage credentials are either masters or hold licenses as masters. Although a licensed operator of an unin- spected towing industry vessel might have different service than a ship's deck officer when qualifying for pilotage of tank barges, much of this experience will have been gained in pilotage waters due to the nature of coastwise towing indus try operations. The Coast Guard has approved 10 apprentice pilot programs run by state pilot associations as satisfying the requirements necessary to obtain an original Federal First Class Pilots License. The programs were developed by the associa- tions and submitted to the Coast Guard for approval. All are at least three-year programs. Round-trip requirements vary from 40 to 360. For example, 360 round trips are required by the Wilmington-Cape Fear Pilots for its apprentices before they can be examined for an original Federal First Class Pilot's License (Ben- nett, 1989~. Under federal law, the Coast Guard may classify licenses by tonnage of vessels, waters traversed, and other standards. Present Coast Guard regulations strictly conform to the provisions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) for masters and mates (IMO, 1978, 19911. A master's or mate's license is granted for vessels of any type or gross tons based on service on self-propelled vessels of 1,600 gross tons or greater. The STOW standards do not provide parallel language for pilots. Because federal pilotage is directed principally to- ward deck officers rather than independent pilots, and in the absence of specific IMO guidance relative to vessel size, the Coast Guard applies STOW tonnage provisions to pilotage on all self-propelled coastwise vessels. An OCMI can issue a first class pilot's license restricted to a class of vessel, such as tug and barge combinations, which is the most typical case. To keep a license in effect, a federal pilot must make one "refamiliarization" round trip every five years over the licensed route. In the case of long routes, the pilot need only review charts and other materials. The license is granted for a term of five years. It may be renewed by mail upon evidence of one year of sea service in the past five years. There are no requirements for periodic review or oversight of the skills and competence of federal pilots or for periodic refresher

0 MINDING THE HELM training. The committee could not identify data that could be used to link the minimum requirements to actual pilot performance. Existing federal requirements do not address substantial differences in the behavior of various types and sizes of vessels under differing operating condi- tions (see Chapter 41. Yet pilots face daily and seasonal variations in traffic and weather; vastly different day and night conditions; and, in river systems, differ- ent river stages. Some owners and operators of coastwise seagoing vessels re- ported to the committee that they have significantly increased standards for their ships' officers who, if they hold pilotage endorsements, may serve as pilots on their vessels. Similarly, associations of independent federal pilots and some dock

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 111 ing masters reported to the committee that they have raised professional stan- dards for their members significantly above minimum requirements for federal pilot's licenses or endorsements. The higher standards required by these owners and associations cast doubt on the adequacy of the federal requirements. Federal Pilot Examinations To obtain an original Federal First Class Pilot's License (or First Class Pilot's endorsement to a license as master, mate, or operator), a candidate must fulfill all the aforementioned requirements and must pass a written examination. The examination covers knowledge of navigation rules, pilot rules, use of tide and current charts, winds and weather, chart navigation, aids to navigation, ship- handling, pollution prevention and abatement, Captain of the Port regulations and vessel traffic service (VTS) procedures, and other subjects directed by the cognizant OCMI. Also required is a chart sketch of the route demonstrating knowledge of recommended courses, distances, prominent aids to navigation, depths in channels and over shoals, and other important features of the route. To obtain a route-extension endorsement, the pilot must make a prescribed number of round trips on the route, passing an abbreviated examination, and draw a chart of the route. Official Discipline Under the Federal Pilotage System There are two forms of discipline professional and official (the latter is usually related to a marine incident or accident). Professional discipline the ability to act in accordance with the rules or standards of the profession-is developed through pilot apprenticeships and continuing professional training (Chapters 2 and 7; Appendices E and F). Good professional discipline is one important defense against deficient performance, mitigating the need for official discipline. Complete pilotage systems, as envisioned by the committee, include specif- ic programs designed to detect shortcomings in knowledge or skills of licensed pilots prior to accidents, although an official disciplinary process is also an im- portant feature. Advance detection programs are not features of either federal or state pilotage. When an incident or accident occurs, cognizant Coast Guard offi- cials focus on establishing the facts to determine what, if any, corrective or punitive action is indicated by the agency. Failure of propulsion or steering systems, rather than pilot error, for example, could be the cause of a grounding. Under the federal pilotage system, the Coast Guard can revoke or suspend a pilot's license if the pilot violates any law intended to promote marine safety or to protect navigable waters, commits an act of misconduct or negligence, or becomes incompetent. Such action may be taken, however, only if the pilot is acting under the authority of the federal license. That is, the Coast Guard may

2 MINDING THE HELM not revoke or suspend the federal license of a pilot who is guilty of faulty work while piloting a vessel in foreign trade under the authority of a state license. The Coast Guard may assess other penalties if other federal laws or regulations are violated. The limits of the Coast Guard's jurisdiction in these matters were de- fined by the courts in 1974. Following a grounding attributed to a vessel's state- licensed pilot, the Coast Guard took action against that pilot's federal license, claiming jurisdiction because the federal license was required by the state as a prerequisite for service as a state-licensed pilot. The Coast Guard action was overturned on the grounds that the pilot was serving under the terms of his state license at the time of the grounding, and there was no requirement for federal pilotage (Parks, 19821. The Coast Guard is able to take action against any federal pilot's license or endorsement if the pilot fails a mandatory random drug test (drug-free status is a condition of holding the license or endorsement). The Coast Guard also adminis- ters a federal requirement for mandatory substance-abuse testing following a marine casualty. Depending on the nature of an incident as determined by an investigation, a pilot may be disciplined by a letter of warning, a fine, or a reprimand; in serious cases, the pilot's license may be suspended or revoked. Civil or criminal prosecution can be initiated in severe cases, such as willful misconduct. Federal disciplinary proceedings can take up to several years longer if legal challenges are mounted. However, a somewhat shorter time frame is com- mon. If a federal pilot's license or endorsement is suspended during the proceed- ings, then the individual usually has limited opportunities to continue work in the maritime field pending completion of: disciplinary proceedings and assess- ment of any penalties. Considering the time frame required to qualify as either a federally or state-licensed pilot, such disciplinary processes could affect the avail- ability of qualified pilots in areas with small pilot services. More expeditious proceedings would be desirable, insofar as their thoroughness could be assured. Coast Guard Resources for Overseeing Pilotage While pilots must be qualified for the service they provide, so too must those who administer pilotage (whether federal or state), to ensure that a suffi- cient expertise is available for setting pilotage program requirements and effec- tively administering them. The Coast Guard provides administrative and opera- tional oversight because of the agency's major port and navigation safety responsibilities. There are no national or international standards for the qualifi- cations of pilotage administrators, but maritime experience and piloting exper- tise are considered highly desirable assets for overseeing the complex nature of pilotage. A concern frequently expressed to the committee is that the Coast Guard may not have sufficient resident expertise to set qualifications for pilotage (Ashe, 19841; to establish locally specific route-familiarization requirements; or

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 113 to perform waterways management activities, such as VTS operations, which directly or indirectly influence pilotage. The Coast Guard's multimission responsibilities provide for extensive regu- latory authority. The agency's infrastructure is designed to administer national regulatory systems, including federal pilotage. The Coast Guard enforces regula- tions related to port safety and security, in the process taking actions that directly affect marine navigation and piloting, as well as marine environmental protec- tion; These activities are performed to the limit of available resources. The Coast Guard has considerable experience in pilotage administration and has the capa- bility to take strong corrective action where specific problems have been identi- fied, as reflected in agency efforts to improve administration of the Great Lakes pilotage system (Appendix D). However, the agency has limited capability to build hands-on experience in the piloting of commercial vessels. The Coast Guard operates few vessels that closely resemble commercial vessels in handling char- acteristics. Nevertheless, deck service aboard Coast Guard cutters can provide hands-on piloting opportunities, allowing some coastguardsmen to build consid- erable practical knowledge of vessel behavior as well as shiphandling skills. Although merchant marine licenses are not required for Coast Guard service and only a small number of coastguardsmen hold them, considerable merchant marine and sea-service expertise generally is available within the marine licens- ing program. For example, of 36 professional program personnel (military and civilian) in the Merchant Vessel Personnel Division, U.S. Coast Guard Head- quarters (the office that oversees marine licensing, including federal and Great Lakes pilotage), 23 hold merchant marine licenses or have qualified as deck or engineering watch officers on Coast Guard vessels (Figure 3-1~. Of these, 30 percent have more than 10 years sea service. The Coast Guard does not maintain information about merchant marine licenses held by personnel assigned to the 17 regional examination centers, marine safety and Captain of the Port (COTP) offices, and vessel traffic services. The agency reports that sea-service back- grounds are considered in assigning personnel to marine and navigation safety duties as well as in the hiring of civilian personnel (licenses cannot be specifical- ly required under federal recruiting rules unless, for example, a license is re- quired by law or regulation). In the committee's experience, agency personnel holding merchant marine licenses and having marine licensing responsibilities are more prevalent on the Headquarters staff than in the field. At the port level, knowledge of commercial vessel navigation and piloting varies among individuals performing COTP functions, including VTS opera- tions. At this level, sea-service experience generally has been gained aboard Coast Guard cutters or brought into the agency through recruiting programs that target individuals with merchant marine backgrounds. Some years ago, the Coast Guard recruited licensed merchant marine officers into its commissioned officer corps at mid-grade levels to ensure that the agency would have the necessary expertise to conduct its marine safety program. Present Coast Guard efforts to

114 Number of Personnel MINDING THE HEEM Total Marine Licenses Held & Coast Guard Sea Service \ \ I. at: :r~:g in:.' :~. ,:~ us: Liz ~ ~- .,; . ·:~s~ ,~.~.=,.~¢,xs. , .... it,'= ':~:': - ' % is i ~ %~.s,%~;;~! a; ;.sx -, ;. .,; I:., ~::~.s~:~ ,., , =. ,. ~ ~ . { First Class Pilot] {Master Unlimited: { Master 1600 G.T.) {Chief Mate {2nd Mate] {3rd Mate] ~ USCG Deck Service {Chief Engineer] , . ~ Asst. Engineer FIGURE 3-1 Maritime credentials for 23 of 36 coastguardsmen and civilian employees serving in the Merchant Vessel Personnel division, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Wash- ington, D.C., March 1993. ensure the availability of essential merchant marine expertise and to maintain close ties with the merchant marine industry include several important programs (Kime, 1992~. The Coast Guard sends recruiters to the six state maritime acade mies at least once a year. Graduates are recruited into the officer corps through the Maritime Graduate (MARGRAD) program; undergraduates are recruited un- der the Maritime Training Program (MARTP). At this writing, 14 graduates and 30 undergraduates are being recruited each year. The Coast Guard plans to in- crease these numbers to approximately 20 graduates and 90 undergraduates. By comparison, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates and commissions approx- imately 200 officers each year (J. F. McGowan, U.S. Coast Guard, personal communication, January 26, 19931. The Coast Guard also sponsors a program in which about four officers train with the marine industry each year. The selected officers are "loaned" to private companies or port authorities for up to a year so they can build familiarity with commercial vessel operations and management. Still other coastguardsmen have opportunities to build knowledge of commercial vessel operations, including marine pilotage, through assignments to VTS and commercial vessel rides that are part of Coast Guard VTS training (Ives et al., 19921.

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 115 The committee did not have sufficient information to determine the nation- wide distribution of Coast Guard uniformed and civilian personnel with mer- chant marine licenses and sea-service experience or to ascertain the effectiveness of training opportunities in building the expertise essential to pilotage adminis- tration and operational oversight. As the preceding discussion indicates, the Coast Guard may have more merchant marine and sea-service expertise within its ranks than typically is perceived by the maritime community, although it may be diffi- cult for personnel to achieve the same depth of expertise as found among those who routinely serve aboard ship or in the towing industry. Assessment of Federal Pilotage Federal pilotage establishes a national baseline for the general marine expe- rience and basic knowledge of local routes needed by pilots (see Fugaro, 1976~. The federal rules have been adopted as entry-level requirements for state pilot and docking master trainees and thus have become de facto national standards for this limited purpose. Although the federal system requires route repetition (that is, round trips), it does not establish pilot training requirements, and it does not provide quality control over professional development or practices that would provide a national standard for piloting skills. The development of piloting skills, professional competence, and proficiency thus depends upon the efforts of indi- viduals, operating companies, and marine pilot associations. The federal disci- plinary process is consistent nationally, but there are no provisions for detecting and correcting shortcomings in human performance before they result in inci- dents or marine accidents. Existing federal pilotage rules, if retained in their present form, would per- mit less rigorous pilotage competency requirements than those envisioned by the committee as central features of a comprehensive pilotage system (Appendix E). Moreover, the federal approach, by broadly enabling ship's officers to serve as a vessel's pilot, does not reflect the traditional concept of the pilot as an indepen- dent professional expert. Because the federal system lacks provisions for quality control and validation of experience and skills, federal pilot's licenses and en- dorsements do not by themselves ensure professional competence or proficiency. The use of round trips as the principal criteria for pilotage route endorsements does not take into account important variations in operating conditions, maneu- vering characteristics of different categories or sizes of vessels, or pilot back- ground and skills. Thus, a licensed federal pilot may serve a broad range of vessels under all conditions, without specifically relevant training or experience. While the Coast Guard has authority to recognize differences in the degree of hazard posed by various vessel types, cargoes, and operating environments, this authority is not exercised to any significant extent. The recency requirements for maintenance of a license or endorsement do not ensure sharp skills. Other than random testing and record checks for alcohol and substance abuse during the

116 MINDING THE HELM licensing process, pilot assessments and corrective or disciplinary actions are not carried out until after an accident occurs. Finally, there are no data that establish statistically the effectiveness of official discipline under federal pilotage in terms of systemic changes in safety performance. STATE REGULATION OF PILO'rAGE State Pilotage Requirements Under present federal laws, the coastal states (except those on the Great Lakes3 are free -to regulate pilotage on vessels in foreign trade, including fore~gn- flag and U.S.-flag vessels, entering, leaving, or otherwise moving within their ports and waters. Although regulations vary from state to state, all seaboard states require vessels in foreign trade to employ state-licensed pilots while enter- ing or leaving all mayor ports, with the exception of some California ports as noted in the next paragraph. (In some states, pilotage laws allow a vessel to refuse pilot services, Though they still have to pay all or a specified portion of the pilotage fee, but this alternative is almost never chose. Many states also require a licensed pilot for movements within a port. No state requires that a pilm actually conduct docking or undocking maneuvers, but some states require the presence of the pilot on the bridge during these evolutions. On the West Coast and Gulf Coast (except for Mobile, Alabama3, marine pilots customarily handle all docking. Marine pilots provide these services at the master's request. No state (or the Coast Guard3 currently licenses individuals solely as docking masters (Ashe, 1984; Crowley, 1991; Parks, 1982, 19883, although civil service pilots In Mobile, Alabama, who are employed by the state port authority, con- duct intraport movements and provide docking services to ships in foreign trade under the authority of state pilot licenses. In California ports outside the San Francisco Bay area, state-licensed pilots are currently not required by state law for foreign trade vessels although state law authorizes local pilotage regulation. In Los Angeles, pilots of vessels in foreign trade are municipal employees; each holds only a federal pilot's license. In Long Beach, pilot services are provided under a contract between port author- ities and an employee-owned company, which trains and employs the pilots (all of whom hold federal licenses3. In San Diego, a local pilot association is com- missioned by port authorities to provide pilot service, but individual pilots (all of whom hold federal licenses3 are not licensed individually by the port. In some other California ports, marine pilots serving vessels in foreign trade have not been regulated by any official bodies, although their associations are seeking official recognition and oversight. Pilotage in California is undergoing extensive examination by state authorities (OSPR, 1993, 19943. In general, state-licensed pilots are required by their state (or governing board, commission, or port authority3 to obtain federal pilot's licenses or en

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 117 dorsements before or during state and local training and apprenticeships. There- fore, state-licensed pilots are eligible to serve vessels in coastwise as well as foreign trade, although on any given transit, they act under the authority of only one license (Parks, 1982~. In the past, they generally were not hired by coastwise vessels unless the master or other ship's officer did not hold the required federal license or endorsement, although masters sometimes took a pilot as a safety precaution. This latter practice is generally permitted by the policies of shipping companies in the coastwise trade. However, because of heightened awareness of the consequences of mishaps or accidents, use of marine pilots for port entry and departure has become increasingly common for coastwise ships, especially tank- ers, as a means of supplementing onboard shiphandling expertise and local knowledge. In some state pilotage jurisdictions, such as in Texas, the loss of the federal license places a state license in jeopardy as well (Ramaswamy and Grabowski, 19921. State-Level Resources for Administering Pilotage Generally, few resources are directed to pilotage administration at the state or local level. Extensive state and local resources are not used because most pilots operate self-supporting businesses that conduct the bulk of system admin- istration, such as the scheduling and dispatch of pilots. Further, the number of individuals that are regulated in each port or state is small and therefore does not necessitate a large regulatory infrastructure to provide official oversight. This is in contrast to federal pilotage which is a nationwide program with centralized

118 MINDING THE HELM regional administration. While a few states have small departments that regulate pilotage, most rely on pilotage commissions and boards. Typically, commission or board members serve part-time and are supported by a small professional staff, usually only several individuals. Generally, but not always, the members have maritime and pilotage expertise. Individuals serving on pilotage boards and commissions generally have extensive professional backgrounds. Those with maritime expertise generally are senior mariners with federal or state pilotage credentials, or both. In some cases, members of a port commission also have responsibilities for pilotage oversight, normally in addition to other responsibili- ties. The duties of pilotage commissions and boards are generally limited to professional regulation including training requirements, discipline, and in some cases, rate setting. State Pilotage Boards State laws generally provide for state or local pilotage boards or commis- sions, which establish pilotage regulations for vessels in state waters; set stan- dards for selecting and training pilot applicants; grant licenses; and oversee and discipline pilots. Pilotage fees are set by statute, by pilotage boards, or by other regulatory or legal bodies. The terms of these laws and regulations and the man- ner in which state boards perform their functions vary considerably and have generated controversy (see Crowley, 1991; NTSB, 1988a; Wastler, 1992b, 1993a,b). Some states allow or require the appointment of active marine pilots to the board, while some require appointment of members of the public. Other states prohibit marine pilots from serving on the board (Ashe, 1984; Crowley, 1991~. State Pilot Associations In nearly all ports, the state pilots serving the port are members of a pilot association. The association (or a pilot-owned company or corporation) provides equipment and services in support of the pilot's work. Support includes pilot boats; dispatch services; accounting and financial services; representation in deal- ing with government, shipowners, and others; and in one port where there previ- ously were no tugboat companies, provision of tug assist services using the pilot boat. Infrastructure needs make it impractical for a pilot to operate effectively without the backing of an association in a large port, although small-scale pilot operations are available in some small ports. Generally, the pilot associations also are responsible for the recruitment, training, and evaluation of pilot appli- cants and have a role in oversight and discipline, subject to the authority of state or local boards. Pilot associations are therefore vitally important elements of the state pilotage systems. In some states, the role of the pilot association is recognized by law, and the

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 119 association may be considered a quasi-governmental organization. Access to the pilot profession is limited or controlled by the state or local pilotage authority to ensure adequate pilot qualification and that the pool of pilots does not exceed the number that can be reasonably supported by the net income generated from services provided to foreign trade vessels. According to state pilots, limited ac- cess also prevents unsafe competition between pilot associations and averts pres- sures from vessel operators that might place economic or other considerations over safety performance (Crowley, 1991; Journal of Commerce, 1992b; Robson, 1990). But some sectors of the marine community, particularly shipping companies and independent marine pilots, argue that competition is not the problem. Inde- pendent federal pilots describe their professional credentials and performance as equivalent to that of state-licensed pilots (Robson, 1990~. Shipping companies typically believe they should have a voice in who pilots their vessels, consider- ing the potential economic consequences if pilot error leads to a marine casualty (Ramaswamy and Grabowski, 19923. These groups assert that the link between competition and unsafe operating practices is not supported by analysis of safety data (see Booz, Allen and Hamilton, 19911. Further, some state pilot associations compete with each other, and others compete with independent federal pilots for pilotage of vessels in the coastwise trade and government vessels. Usually, there is only one association for each port or pilotage area. Howev- er, in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, and Oregon, economic factors resulted in the formation of competing state pilot associations (Dexheimer, 1991~. There also was a recent unsuccessful attempt to form separate pilot associations for several San Francisco area ports (Wastler, 1992b, 1993a,b). These developments gener- ally have resulted from disagreements over association financial matters such as pilot compensation and pension plans. Formation of competing associations is not addressed or prohibited by many state pilotage laws and regulations. State-licensed pilots may, and in a few ports do, compete for non-foreign piloting business, such as U.S. Navy ships and commercial ships in domestic trade, that by law, regulation, or contract, requires federal pilots. Marine pilots holding only federal licenses are prohibited by state laws from competing for business reserved for state-licensed pilots. Competition introduces new com- plexity into debates over economic and safety issues, confounding any resolu- tion. Training and Professional Development Recruitment, training, and development requirements for state-licensed pi- lots generally are set by state-level governing authorities; implementation nor- mally is conducted by or through the pilot associations. In most states, after an applicant is accepted for training, he or she enters a pilot apprenticeship pro- gram. The apprentice receives practical instruction from senior pilots in piloting

120 MINDING THE HELM skills, characteristics of the route, and ship behavior for various vessel types and sizes and operating conditions. The apprentice must complete the number of trips established by the governing authority for the route and waters on which the candidate will serve, as a prerequisite for examination and licensing. As part of training, the apprentice generally is required to obtain a federal pilot's license (or endorsement) for the same routes and waters. After licensing, most state systems require substantial service over a period of years on vessels of small and moderate size before a pilot is allowed to serve large ships. Some states require the pilot to pass another examination before advancing, but generally, progression depends on experience rather than formal assessment. Further formal training or development and professional evaluation typically are not required, except for occasional refresher training for pilots who have been out of service for an extended period. Once a pilot is fully qualified, performance monitoring is generally informal and ad hoc. Pilots generally have been reluctant to address colleague performance because of social and business relationships, potential loss of earning for affected individuals, and especially concern that any form of oversight might expose them to liability for a col- league's performance. Systematic means for advance detection of degraded skills or other factors that could adversely affect performance are generally not avail- able to assist in determining needs for remedial action. In a few state systems, such as the Florida state-wide system, continuing professional development re- quirements have recently been instituted. A growing number of pilot associa- tions voluntarily have begun to send some members to shiphandling simulation training as one element of association professional development programs. Some of the simulations are generic and focused on skill development; others are spe- cifically tailored to the vessels and routes served. Marine pilots use simulation as a supplement to actual experience and training gained through apprentice pro- grams. Similarly, the American Pilot's Association recently endorsed participa- tion in bridge resources management training by its membership as an additional means to enhance pilot performance (APA, 19931. Pilot Discipline and Operational Oversight Under State Systems Various oversight and disciplinary processes are used in the state systems. Critics of safety performance have questioned whether these measures are ade- quate in all states to screen out pilots with unsatisfactory records (Ashe, 1984; Crowley, 1991; NTSB, 1988a; Parker, 1988~. Although auditing the disciplinary record of state pilot systems was outside the scope of this report, the committee was able to make some observations. What emerges from the available evidence is a range of response to safety issues. State pilotage system authorities may discipline a pilot by assessing fines, suspending or revoking the pilot's license, lowering the pilot's grade, placing the pilot on probation, or other measures (Ramaswamy and Grabowski, 19921. As

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 121 early as 1983 (in Louisiana), random alcohol and drug testing programs began to appear at the state level, and they have been successful in detecting and screen- ing out abusers, including active pilots. Some pilot boards conduct post-incident tests for drugs and alcohol (Michael Delesdernier, attorney-at-law, personal com- munication, January 17, 1992; Gary Maddox, Tampa Bay Pilot's Association, personal communication, January 17, 1992~. Investigative procedures following an incident or accident vary considerably. Some boards rely on Coast Guard investigations. Others conduct on-scene or full-scale investigations. State influence over commercial vessel operations is indirect, in that the states cannot direct or limit the operations as can the Coast Guard. But states can and do establish requirements for pilotage; some have established ancillary re- quirements, such as tug escorts for tankers arid, in the case of Washington State, requirements for a person fluent in English to be on a tanker's bridge. Thus, while the states cannot direct operations, they can control some of the rules and have direct influence over the professional development of some of the players. The Exxon Valdez grounding spurred states to tighten controls on marine safety (Crowley, 1991; Sankovitch, 1993~. For example, strong legislation establishing public oversight of marine safety, complementing existing pilotage oversight, was enacted in the state of Washington (Darlene Maddenwald, Washington En- vironmental Council, personal communication, October 7, 1991~. Several other states also have enacted legislation affecting the carriage of petroleum that also may influence pilotage practices. The NTSB has beers critical of the integrity of state pilot systems. Following its examination of a marine casualty in Louisiana, the board found what it con- s~dered to be system faults within state pilotage systems nationally. In the Loui- siana case, the board found that the pilot governing board, composed entirely of pilots frown the association governed, was unable to provide independent over- s~ght, with the result that discipline was inadequate for pilots involved in marine casualties (NTSB, 1988a). The Louisiana Legislature, at the urging of local pilot associations, responded to the board's criticism and passed leg~slat~-or~ requiring establishment of pilot review boards to oversee the perfo~ance of the existing boards of pilot examiners. The five-member pilot review boards each include two nonmaritime public members appointed by the governor. This requirement is being implemented (Michael Delesdernier, personal communication, January 17, 199~21. The NTSB also recommended that the federal p~llot's license be established as superior to state pilot's licenses so that Coast Guard discipline could be ap- plied to all pilots, regardless of what licenses they operate under (NTSB, 1988a). However, the NTSB report provides only a cursory examination of other state pilotage systems and federal pilotage, including official discipline (see Ashe, 1984~. Therefore, the board's recommendation has been the subject of consider- able controversy.

22 MINDING THE HELM Assessment of State Pilotage Systems The structure and administration of state pilotage vary widely among the coastal states. Although most programs have very similar primary components, there are no national guidelines or incentives to motivate consistency in basic system requirements or their application as the foundation for locally-specific requirements for pilot qualification and performance, nor are pilotage systems accredited by any nationally accepted body to enhance public confidence in their ability to satisfy both state and federal interest in safe navigation. The lack of administrative consistency is also reflected in operating practices at a time when pilots are being relied on as the only consistent factor in the operation of foreign- flag vessels while transiting pilotage waters. State pilotage limits access to the pilotage system, resulting in a relatively closed profession. As a result, misgiv- ings have been expressed about the workings and motivations of state pilot asso- ciations, particularly by operating companies that pay pilotage fees and by the NTSB. Under state pilotage systems, measures to confirm maintenance of pilot knowledge and skills are informal; systematic measures are not used to detect and correct degraded capabilities before such weaknesses become factors in ma- rine accidents. Nevertheless, detection and correction of performance problems occurs to some extent, although once a pilot is qualified for unrestricted service, detection is more by chance rather than by design. The disciplinary record once accidents occur is difficult to assess, because data generally have not been pub- lished, and because the significance of accidents varies considerably between individual events. But, as far as the committee could determine, the effectiveness of corrective action at the state level by pilot associations and pilot boards has been uneven. OTHER FORMS OF PILOTAGE Docking, Undocking, and Mooring Services Docking and Mooring Masters Docking and undocking of vessels and mooring them to offshore buoys call for special maneuvering and shiphandling skills and usually involve working with harbor tugs. A person who boards a vessel for the specific purpose of handling a docking or undocking with the assisting tugs is generally known as a docking master (or docking pilot). On the West and Gulf coasts, docking and undocking services are provided by marine pilots. In most East Coast ports, dockings and undockings are princi- pally handled by docking masters, generally former tug captains who are affiliat- ed with tug companies. Some docking masters also handle the majority of in- traport movements requiring tugboat assistance, primarily in the Port of New

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 123 Tug assist work in the Port of New Orleans. Docking and undocking evolutions are directed by river pilots on the lower Mississippi River. Working in close to the propeller is dangerous but necessary, and requires high levels of skill and precision coordination h~t~x~P~n the Pilot ~nr1 the. on~.rntor Of the. whiting tabs (Weave Young, Marine Boardf) r ~A A ~= - ~ York and New Jersey, and also in the Port of Jacksonville, Florida, and the river ports of Wilmington, North Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia. Mooring to off- shore buoys on the Gulf and West coasts are typically performed by shipping company employees serving as mooring masters. In most ports, state-licensed pilots are not required for the docking, undock- ing, or mooring of foreign trade vessels. Some states also have not required state-licensed pilots for intraport movements. Under the current rules of the New York Board of Pilot Commissioners, for example, a pilot's services end when the vessel has been brought across the bar "to a safe anchorage, or to a position in the immediate vicinity of the berth to which the vessel is bound, unless the master formally requests the pilot to assist with the docking or mooring." The Coast Guard considers a docking master to be engaged in pilotage under 46 U.S.C. 8502 during docking or undocking or in-port movement of a coastwise vessel, so the docking master must operate under the authority of a federal pilot's license or endorsement (USCG, 19913. Virtually all docking mas- ters hold a federal pilot's endorsement on their operator (or merchant marine) license, and they typically have extensive harbor tug experience. However, most of their work involves ships in foreign trade in ports where neither federal nor

24 MINDING THE HELM state jurisdiction has been; exercised over docking vessels or in-l?ort movements in that trade (see Crowley, 1991; Parks, 19821. Thus, docking masters are not acting under their federal license and therefore are not accountable to a piIotage authority when directing and controlling docking evolutions or serving as harbor pilot for in-port movements of foreign-trade vessels. Docking masters acknowledge the gap in official accountability and say they want official sanction for the services they provide, including harbor pilot- age. They have indicated to the committee that long-term resolution of this situ- ation is up to the states, although they would accept official Coast Guard recog- nition of their role and services if the states failed to act. Training and Practice Most docking masters, if not all, have formed associations, usually retaining an affiliation with a tug company through some form of employee or manage- ment relationship, or a retainer. The associations or tug companies with which they are affiliated set standards for practical training and experience. Modern training methods such as manned-model shiphandling and con~puter-based ship bridge simulation have not been used; whether such approaches would be of value in training docking masters is not certain. High-technology positioning systems beyond basic radar appear to be used infrequently during docking and undocking; their accuracy and reliability for these evolutions remains to be es- tablished for most port settings. Indeed, high-technology docking systems are not even available at U.S. port facilities. Docking master dispatch typically is handled by the tug company. Accountability Docking masters usually hold federal pilot licenses, which are required for serving the coastwise trade. However, as noted earlier, docking and undocking operations are not conducted under the authority of these licenses when they involve vessels in foreign trade, because neither the states nor the Coast Guard has exercised jurisdiction. This is a significant gap in official accountability. Whether docking masters providing services to vessels in foreign trade should be held accountable to a licensing authority has been the subject of considerable debate (Crowley, 1991; Journal of Commerce, 1992b,d; USCG, 1990a). This gap may be compensated for in some cases by the docking master's professional accountability to associations, tug companies, or shipowners. How- ever, these relationships inevitably mix issues of professional competence and safety performance with economic considerations. The complexity of the ac- countability issue and the link between economic and safety considerations is illustrated by the situation in the Port of New York and New Jersey (Box 3-7~. Docking masters contend that industry influences motivate their vigilance in

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 125 maintaining competent professional performance, because they are directly ob- served by: · state pilots who, depending on state pilotage requirements or pilot associ- ation policy, may remain aboard during the docking process; · vessel masters concerned with possible damage to their vessel; · port facility operators concerned about potential damage to their struc- tures and impacts on their operations; and · tug masters, whose vessels and crews could be jeopardized by maneuver- ing orders given by the docking master. Docking masters say they quickly hear about any lapses in their perfor- mance, particularly from those who may be endangered, the operators and crews of assist tugs. If a threat is severe enough, the tug masters can bring it to the attention of the tug company (with which they and the docking master are affili- ated) or the docking master's association. However, the committee could find no data indicating how often this occurs or how effective it might be. While company and association policies and relationships with docking mas- ters vary, a docking master whose performance jeopardizes a tug company's assets or docking business is a liability. These market forces may have the great- est impact on large tug companies, because small tug companies have limited resources to fall back on if a performance problem is acknowledged. On the other hand, the often-heavy competition between harbor tug companies for busi- ness creates at least a potential ethical if not maneuvering problem for docking masters. Possible scenarios include less than optimal tug assistance ordered by an official representing the-ship in order to reduce costs, or contracting tug assistance from one towing company when more suitable equipment may be available from a competitor. The latter scenario could prove particularly trouble- some for some docking masters because of their direct affiliations with tug com- panies. No data or testimony were available to establish whether or to what degree business pressures affect docking practices. Similarly unavailable are statistically' valid comparative assessments of the performance of marine pilots performing docking services versus that of docking masters for the same routes and types and sizes of vessels. Such an assessment would be necessary for a determination of the effectiveness of market forces in establishing professional accountability, as compared with oversight by licens . . . sang aut tortes. Assessment of Docking and Mooring Services for Vessels in Foreign Trade The committee could not compare the safety performance of docking mas- ters and marine pilots in the provision of docking services to vessels in foreign trade, due to insufficient data and lack of an accepted methodology. Although docking masters virtually all hold' federal pilot's licenses, they do not act under

726 these licenses Ruben serving vessels in Reign Made. Nevertheless, Hey are sub- jec1 to professional oversight, albeit nei1ber official nor consistent. This gap in official accountability may be compensated to some extent by professional ac- countabiLty generated tbroupb market farces, but the possibility remains 1ba1 substandard performance or practices may be undetected or uncorrected un1d an incident or accident occurs. Safely and licensing autborbies have not establisbed requirements or programs 10 owed 1bese possibibties. This lack of official ac

FRANCE ~\ 727 countability to ~ licensing autbobty is not consistent with the pilotage require- ments tab me generally ~plic~le to foreign trade vessels. P110tage in Federal Canals The Cape Cod Canal and Ches~e~e and Delouse (Cage) Canal are Idea al navigahon protects controlled by the U.S. Any Cows of Engineers. Federal 11 1 1111 ~l~l~l~d~ll~ll~cI~llllll~u~I/11111~I~sl~lll~le 111~11111o~dlllll~llllll4~lllll~llllllll1

28 MINDING THE HELM pilot's licenses or endorsements are required for commercial vessels in domestic trades on these canals as on other federal waters. For vessels in foreign trade, pilotage requirements vary. The states of Maryland and Delaware require pilot- age for the C&D Canal. The state of Massachusetts requires a state-licensed pilot for tankers in the foreign trade that moor at an electrical generating plant located part way through the Cape Cod Canal. Beyond this, there are no state require- ments for pilotage in that canal. The Corps of Engineers, which regulates transits of the canal, has an operational policy requiring a licensed pilot (either federal or state) on ships and tugs with tows (33 CFR 207.201; however, the Corps of Engineers does not have authority to establish pilotage as a regulatory require- ment (USAGE, 1980~. Most ships that transit the canal are regular customers, are familiar with local navigation difficulties, and take licensed pilots without ques- tion. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, there have been no major casualties in the Cape Cod Canal since 1977. Regardless, Coast Guard-proposed pilotage rules noted earlier are intended to fill this gap in the absence of state action. Pilotage in the Towing Industry Barges under tow and their accompanying tugs or towboats are subject to state pilotage rules if they are engaged in foreign trade and transit state waters. Few barges, however, are engaged in such trade these are principally large integrated tug and barge combinations and very large freight barges. Most barg- es are in coastwise and inland trade. If they are coastwise seagoing vessels and carry oil or hazardous cargoes, then they are subject to Coast Guard pilotage rules. If they are limited to inland trade, then they are not subject to pilotage requirements. This section focuses on the Coast Guard rules that are applicable to the tug and towing industry; the piloting of inland tug and barge combinations also is addressed, as these vessels share the same channels as oceangoing ships. The towing industry is quite different from the shipping industry, owing to distinctly different operating characteristics. The inland and coastal towing sec- tors also differ considerably with regard to tug and barge types and towing configurations. From a piloting standpoint, ship and tug operations are distin- guished by the means of direction and control. A ship master or marine pilot, when conning the vessel, issues orders to a helmsman, who responds verbally and executes the commands; the conning officer's engine orders are given to the engine room by the mate or controlled by the bridge-eng~neroom control unit. In contrast, a tug captain has direct tactile control over vessel steering and may have direct control over the propulsion system. A tug operator also has frequent opportunities to gain local knowledge and boat-handling experience. Some barges are larger than some ships, and barge trains (or flotilla) may be of extended length, for example, up to 1,200 feet for inland tows on portions of the lower Mississippi River. Considerable vessel maneuvering skills are required

729 ~ YE IS ~ ~:~S~S~ ~ ~ ~S~s~ River tug and 10~ in pusb-to~ conAguradon. Tbc specific sells required to maneuver Aver tows diner Mom those required to maneuver ships, because of signiAcanLdi~rencos in maneuvchng charactodsUcs and differing stcchng equipment employed aboard river Emboss. ~ ^~ ~)

30 MINDING THE HELM to handle these large tug and barge combinations. Interaction of these units and ships in confined channels can present challenging maneuvering scenarios. Thus, a potential exists for collisions and rammings involving vessels with and without licensed pilots; the consequences can be severe, considering the nature of car- goes transported. For example, a multivessel collision in Tampa Bay on August 10, 1993, involved 546-foot and 442-foot tank barges, each pushed by a tug in the notch, and a 345 foot foreign-flag bulk carrier. The accident featured explo- sion and fire aboard one of the barges and abandonment of the pushing tug by her crew, pollution from a hole in the other barge, and intentional grounding of the bulk carrier to prevent her sinking. Also involved were federal pilots aboard one of the tug and tow combinations and state-licensed pilots aboard the other two vessels (Barstow, 1993; OSIR, 1993h; Park, 19931. Pilotage for Coastwise Towing Industry Vessels Prior to 1980, the Coast Guard did not apply pilotage rules to tank barges in coastwise trade. The case of Moran Maritime v. U.S.C.G., 526 F. Supp. 335, 1981 A.M.C. 2778 (D, D.C.), held that the Coast Guard was correct in its inter- pretation that pilotage requirements applied to tugs towing tank barges of more than 1,000 gross tons (AWO, 1992b; Parks, 19881. Thereafter, until 1985, li- censed federal pilots were required for barges over 1,000 gross tons. In 1985, the Coast Guard adopted a special pilotage rule for coastwise tank barges (carrying oil or other hazardous cargoes) of 10,000 gross tons or less. (Very few tank barges exceed 10,000 tons; for them, the regular Coast Guard pilotage rules apply.) A tank barge of 10,000 gross tons is nevertheless very large; up to 7 million gallons of product can be transported. According to the Coast Guard, the special rule was intended to relieve financial and paperwork burdens on the agency and the towing industry, and the rule was based on an analysis of the cost of barge accidents and the cost of requiring barges to carry licensed pilots (50 FR 121~. For tank barges of 10,000 tons or less, the 1985 Coast Guard rule does not require a licensed pilot. However, under the same rule, a coastwise seagoing self-propelled vessel over 1,600 gross tons, such as a small tanker, would require a licensed pilot. The rule allows the licensed master, mate, or operator of the tug or towboat to "act as" pilot of the tug/barge unit if the requirements specified in the rule are met (46 CFR 15.8121. The Coast Guard considers "acting as" pilots to be licensed pilots within the meaning of the federal pilotage laws and thus not exempted from pilotage requirements. This position was upheld in 1986 by a federal district court (American Pilots v. Gracey, 631 F. Supp. 827, 1986 A.M.C. 1406 [D, D.C.~; Parks, 19881. However, the "acting as" pilots are subject to licensing criteria that are less stringent than those for mariners holding Federal First Class Pilot's Licenses or endorsements. To "act as" pilot, the operator first must be licensed at the minimum as an

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION . . .... ... ... . .. ... .. .. . ..,: ~.~.~. ~' ~ .................... ~.~9,,~,,,,,~,,~,.~ ................................................................................... . ....... '. 2 ~x .. ' ' .. ... . ....... . . ..... .... .... ....... ... ... .. .... ... . . . . ~t ~. .. ~I .... X . ... - -.- - - , ...... . ., r . .... ... ... ... ..... X . ~C . ~. ~ . . . ~ . ,' ^~ ~$xtCO} - ~ . . ~, .. ~ . ~. , . ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ cm .. . .. . . . . . ~ .. ~ ~~ ~ ) : . :~......... . ~^ ~ a.~. ~n .~h ~ - ~ ~ sew~ ::: . .. - ~. ~ :::::: ~: ·:::: ::: :: :::: ::: ::::: :: :::::: ::: :: :: ::: :::: :: ::: ::: :: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .~ ::::::::::::~::::::::: ::~ : :: :: : ::: :: :::::: ::: :. ~ :::::: ::: i x ~.. . . 5~ ~ 7~$ I ~ t:;- . ~. . . ~...... I .. ...... . ..................................................................................................................................................... ........................ .......................................... ................. ........ ......................................... ........... ........... . ~. . I T .............................................................................................. . . ~ . ~ , . .... .. . . . .. .. .. .. .................................................................................... .................................. ..~ ~ ~ ~ - . . ....... .. . Ax.' ~. ~. ~. .. . . . .... 131 operator of uninspected towing vessels. Requirements for this license are listed in Box 3-8. The operator also must have six months' service on a towing vessel and have completed 12 round trips over the route in question, eight with a barge in tow. The towing industry claims that company-provided professional develop- ment programs, normal operating practices, and long-term employment within the industry (usually with a single company) together provide the experience necessary to act as pilot and that safety performance is good (AWO, 1992b; Farrell, 1991; TBS, 19851. Round trips may be made as an "observer," without hands-on experience or active training. A "round trip" usually means a trip to a single facility on the route, not necessarily a transit of the entire route. With respect to ports, a transit to any dock or berth satisfies the requirement. Skill and knowledge are not test- ed. Tug masters, mates, and operators may "self certify" their qualifications and need not furnish evidence thereof to the Coast Guard unless it is requested; Coast Guard officials report that evidence rarely is requested. Thus, although there may be documentation, there is no official, qualitative means for verifying or validating an individual's qualifications. Coastwise service is marked by frequent port entries and exits. Therefore, the towing industry contends that experienced tug masters, mates, and operators

132 MINDING THE HELM have substantial opportunities to gain familiarity with local waters and to devel- op specialized skills to pilot tug-barge units (AWO, 1992b; Farrell, 1991; Ra- maswamy and Grabowski, 19921. The coastwise nature of these operations does not distinguish the towing industry from much of the rest of coastwise shipping except that the maneuvering of multiple units is more common in the towing industry. Some tug companies, when they use marine pilots, do not allow them to direct and control movement of the tug/barge combination unless the pilot has towing industry experience and is an expert in handling tugs and barges (AWO, 1992b). To ensure adequate knowledge and skills, some of the larger companies in the towing industry impose requirements of experience and other qualifica- tions on their tug masters, mates, and operators that are significantly higher than are Coast Guard standards for persons "acting as" pilots. Such requirements may not be economically feasible for some towing industry companies that operate only a small number of vessels, because they lack the resources necessary to underwrite in-house professional development programs. (Information developed by the committee concerning practices of smaller companies was insufficient to allow a comparative analysis.) Regardless, there are no accreditation procedures for tug companies' professional development programs. Pilotage of Inland Towing Vessels Inland towing industry vessels operate on many of the same waters as coast- wise and foreign-trade vessels, and routinely interact with these vessels when doing so. The piloting of inland towing vessels has come to public attention principally through allisions with bridges, especially one that resulted in the derailment of an Amtrak train in Alabama with great loss of life (Phillips, 1993; USCG, 1993d). Although an assessment of pilotage requirements for inland tow- boats exceeds the scope of the present study, the piloting of these vessels and the professional development of vessel operators is described insofar as available information permitted. At one time, federal pilotage was required for the operation of many inland vessels, including uninspected towing vessels. Pilotage of inland vessels greater than 15 and less than 100 gross tons was mandated by 46 U.S.C.404. As a result, many operators of towing industry vessels held Federal First Class Pilot's Li- censes or endorsements for vast stretches of the nation's inland navigable rivers. (For licensed operators under the age of 21, Second Class Pilot's endorsements were issued.) The pilotage requirement was deleted in 1980 by Public Law 96- 378 so as to enable the Coast Guard to establish a crew complement in the certificate of inspection on a vessel-by-vessel basis. This authority appears to have been applied exclusively to passenger vessels. As a result, piloting knowl- edge and skills for inland towing vessels are developed entirely through compa- ny training programs (Appendix F).

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 133 Although First or Second Class Pilot's endorsements are no longer required by the Coast Guard, a few inland towing industry companies have in the past required pilot's endorsements to advance to master or give preferential treatment for advancement (T. Allegretti, personal communication, December 16, 1993; W. Creelman, personal communication, November 15, 1993J. Bonuses were also sometimes given to employees holding pilotage credentials (W. Creelman, per- sonal communication, November 15, 1993~. However, as with the coastwise towing industry, data are not available on the extent of pilotage practices, the beneficial effects on operational safety, and on the differences in the abilities of large and small companies to provide effective professional development pro- grams. Public Criticism of Pilotage in the Towing Industry The committee received considerable testimony and correspondence that were critical of pilotage requirements in the towing industry (Ramaswamy and Grabowski, 1992~. Critics of pilotage requirements and administration as they apply to the towing industry (Crowley, 1991; NRDC, 1990; Ramaswamy and Grabowski, 1992; Sanborn, 1991; Sankovitch, 1993) argue that: · requirements for "acting as" a pilot are seriously inadequate, and self- certification of qualifications means that even those standards are not verified or documented; · the Coast Guard does not supervise compliance with these requirements; · the inadequacy of present federal standards is underscored by the fact that large towing companies have much higher standards for their own person- nel; · a significant percentage of oil is transported in coastal and inland waters by barges and small tankers, and oil spills resulting from barge accidents are a major source of marine and coastal pollution; . towing operations present unique shiphandling and seamanship challeng- es, suggesting the need for standards that are higher than those currently in force; and · the Coast Guard's accident-cost analysis supporting the 1985 special rule was deficient in that it, among other things, did not take into account important costs, including natural resource damages and the risk of major loss, and as- sumed that tug owners would engage independent pilots if subjected to pilotage requirements. Insufficient data were available to prove or disprove statistically the effec- tiveness of pilotage of coastwise shipping in either the towing or shipping indus- tries. The safety data maintained by the Coast Guard provide very limited insight on safety performance. The Coast Guard has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of safety performance relative to its pilotage program. The shipping

34 MINDING THE HELM and towing industries have produced studies based on Coast Guard data that they claim tend to support the Coast Guard's approach to pilotage for towing vessels (AWO, 1992a,b; Booz, Allen and Hamilton, 1991; Farrell, 1991; TBS, 19851; these studies are discussed in Appendix E. The Coast Guard's analysis of its casualty data for self-propelled vessels yielded similar results (USCG, 1993c). Pilotage of Military Sealift Command Ships The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC) provides cargo service to the Department of Defense. MSC-operated or chartered vessels are either not subject to pilotage as public vessels or subject to either federal or state pilotage if operating under enrollment or registry. Navy-owned MSC ships are considered to be public vessels if crowed by MSC civilian employees; these vessels are not subject to either federal or state pilotage. Vessels chartered and operated by MSC under a demise charter and crowed by MSC civilian employees are consid- ered public vessels and are not subject to pilotage. The following MSC-owned or chartered vessels are not considered public vessels and are subject to pilotage; federal or state pilotage depends on their documentation (John J. Hartke, U.S. Coast Guard, personal communication, March 15, 19933: · Navy-owned MSC ships operated by private ship management compa- nies under contract to MSC; · vessels chartered by MSC under a demise charter but operated by a con- tractor; and · vessels operating under a time charter to MSC. Pilotage of Inland Passenger Vessels Because some passenger vessels such as ferries operate solely on inland waters, they are not subject to existing federal pilotage laws, which apply exclu- sively to the coastwise seagoing vessels. However, the Coast Guard, under au- thority of 46 U.S.C. 8101, can establish special conditions for manning on a vessel's COI. The Coast Guard generally requires Federal First Class Pilot's Licenses or endorsements for the operation of certain vessels carrying passen- gers for hire. In this manner, pilotage becomes vessel specific and is applied selectively in ports, harbors, and inland river systems. Pilotage for Dredges Self-propelled seagoing hopper dredges are eligible for exemptions from federal pilotage requirements (non-self-propelled dredges are transported by tugs). Most hopper dredges were originally owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As public vessels, they were not subject to federal

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 135 pilotage requirements. Prior to the passage by Public Law 100-329 in 1988, dredging was not a coastwise trade. About the same time, some of the Corps of Engineers' dredges were privatized. These developments caused the Coast Guard to apply pilotage statutes to self-propelled hopper dredges. The dredging indus- try persuaded the Congress that the 1988 law was not intended to affect any operational aspect of dredging. Further, they argued, imposing pilotage require- ments on these shallow draft maneuverable vessels would result in substantial costs to the government and the increased costs would be passed back to the taxpayer. The Coast Guard did not object to an exemption of these vessels from pilotage requirements as long as the exemption would be discretionary (NADC, undated; USCG, 1990a). Very limited information was identified relative to the navigational safety of self-propelled seagoing hopper dredges, and no systemic safety problems were identified to the committee. European and British Columbia Pilotage Systems The committee collected considerable information concerning the pilotage systems in Western Europe and British Columbia (Appendices F and H). This information, which provided a useful counterpoint to U.S. pilotage systems, is summarized below. Pilotage Systems In Europe and Canada, pilots are viewed in the traditional sense as master mariners that are independent of the vessel. They provide expert local knowl- edge and shiphandling expertise that is necessary for safe and efficient port arrivals and departures. Pilots may serve port complexes and their approaches, as in most European ports, or they may serve entire regions, as in British Columbia. A wide variety of pilotage models are used; none has been demonstrated to be more effective than the others. Pilotage models occasionally have been changed, primarily to improve efficiency. Safety and economic efficiency of competing port complexes are dominant themes in the provision of pilotage services, re- gardless of whether pilots are organized as independent contractors, members of a pilot corporation, or civil servants. Marine pilots in some ports, particularly in the Netherlands, are heavily involved in supporting VTS operations to improve both safety and efficiency. Pilot Qualifications Heavy emphasis is placed on the professional competence of pilots in west- ern European and Canadian waters. The qualification program in Rotterdam is perhaps the most rigorous, requiring theoretical, simulator, and practical training and examinations, but all pilotage authorities require considerable experience

36 MINDING THE HELM and apprenticeships. Small commercial craft arid some coastal vessels are gener- ally exempt from compulsory pilotage. Member states of the European Community generally provide pilotage ex- emption programs for ships of other European Community countries on set runs, such as North Sea Ferries. However, exemptions are controlled tightly. They require licensure of the person receiving the exemption by the appropriate Euro- pean~Community country, arid are usually vessel- and route-specific, require considerable trip frequency, and usually require that the master or mate be sub- jected to a rigorous practical and theoretical examination. Exemptions for small- er vessels, however, may be based on vessel size or operator experience. Essen tially, masters or mates receiving exemption certificates are placed under the same professional qualification requirements as the pilots, although only for their particular route and ship (or sister ship). The exemption certificate is not a broad-based pilotage endorsement; it does not entitle the holder to pilot other types or sizes of vessels or to provide service on other routes. Exemption pro- grams are intended to ensure a baseline level of pilotage proficiency for all vessels, whether subject to compulsory pilotage or piloted by masters or mates holding exemption certificates. Pilot Training Using Shiphandling Simulation The committee found growing interest among marine pilots in the use of both computer-based ship bridge and manned-model shiphandling simulations. Such simulations are generally considered a valuable training aid, but they are not the primary means of training pilots. The primary means continues to be apprenticeships, which provide exposure to a wide variety of vessels under a wide variety of operating conditions. This experience allows candidates to ma- ture professionally through progressive accumulation of local knowledge and professional expertise. Simulations, where employed, build on and help refine an individual's capabilities; if combined with theoretical classroom work, they serve as a practicum on technical matters. For both manned-mode] shiphandling and computer-based ship bridge simulations, pilots or pilot candidates all come to the training with considerable nautical experience. No organization was found to be using simulation as a means to reduce the time necessary to qualify as pilot. Marine simulation is not used in licensing in the United States except in ap- proved courses leading to the radar observer's certificate required for some Coast Guard-issued licenses. OPA 90 brought additional attention to shiphandling sim- ulation by requiring the Coast Guard to examine its application for training of tanker officers. Although many pilots have found manned-model shiphandling and comput- er-based ship bridge simulations valuable, questions remain about the efficacy of simulation for broader application in training and licensing. Areas of concern include the validation of simulators and simulations for training, the necessary

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 137 level of fidelity for visual scenes and vessel behavior, the adequacy of training objectives and curriculum, the qualification of simulation instructors, and the transfer of training to actual operations (Guest, 1992a,b; Herberger et al., 1991; Marine Institute and I'D, 1993; NRC, 1992a; Webster and Young, 1993~. IMPROVING PIL()TAGE PRACTICES AND ADMINISTRATION Longstanding federal and state interests in pilotage have become greater as the potential consequences of marine accidents to public and environmental safe- ty and public awareness of them have grown. Although the multijurisdiction- al administration of pilotage has been in effect for more than a century, it is unwieldy and has a number of obvious shortcomings. These include: · non-availability of a written code of professional ethics; · gaps in formal accountability to licensing authorities for docking and crooning evolutions and for some marine pilot operations; . general absence of training requirements or programs for decision mak- ing and application of shiphandling skills under the stress of emergency situa- tions; · lack of recertification requirements to establish that pilots maintain req- uisite knowledge and skills at acceptable levels; · discipline of federally and state-licensed pilots only after an accident, rather than through advance constructive measures designed to detect degraded skills or other performance problems before they become part of the error chain in accidents; · placement of ancillary responsibilities, such as determining and reporting operational deficiencies, on marine pilots; · relief from rigorous port-specific pilotage requirements for the domestic coastwise trade; · lack of formal pilot training and quality-control programs to ensure pro- fessional competency; · great diversity in pilotage requirements, system administration, and pilot development programs, all of which result in pilotage systems of varying quality; . lack of completeness in pilotage models employed as compared with the committee's model; and . joint jurisdiction over pilotage routes but not the vessels using them. Some of these shortcomings have been under review for years by the Con- gress, the Coast Guard, the NTSB, state pilotage authorities, and other bodies, but with limited effect. Meanwhile, roost coastal states have reviewed and are revising (or are considering revising) their pilotage laws; these include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii' New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Also, questions have been raised as to whether pilotage regulation in the towing industry adequately addresses navigation safety reeds.

38 MINDING THE HELM Regardless of who administers pilotage, basic issues still need to be re- solved concerning what standards should be applied, how qualification should be conducted, who should be licensed, what the pilot's role should be, and how pilotage should be administered. Alternatives for Improving Pilotage Systems The central features ot a complete pilotage model are presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix F. Using this model as the frame of reference, the following actions could be taken to improve pilotage systems. Establish National Guidelines or Standards The great variations among existing pilotage models leave much to chance. All pilotage could benefit greatly from well-conceived national guidelines or standards that could be used by pilots and governing authorities alike in improv- ing their pilotage models and performance. The establishment of national guide- lines is essential to build public confidence in pilotage requirements. Guidelines or standards would benefit the following areas: · Pilotage. General principles would be chosen for designation of pilot age waters and the vessels subject to pilotage (including their movements in port). These principles would take into account the degree of hazard as affected by: vessel types; substandard vessels, equipment, or crews; nature of cargoes; and waterway, weather, and other conditions. For example, in some cases, the use of two pilots or pilots with special qualifications might be required. If more than one pilot is used, one should be designated as the senior pilot. The senior pilot would be responsible for explaining the division of responsibilities to the master, and in particular, which pilot will take the cone. · Selection of pilot candidates. Guidelines would help ensure that the best and most qualified applicants are chosen for training. Pilot candidates would be required to have recent and substantial prior experience at sea or in the towing industry, in service as masters, mates, pilots, or licensed operators, unless ade- quate training were provided to substitute for such experience. · Training of pilot candidates. Training would include extensive service under the direct supervision of active pilots, in all waters, operations, and vessels to be covered by the license. · Licensing. Guidelines would cover all aspects of a license, including duration. Licenses might be issued for short terms; issued initially for vessels of limited size, type, and risk (excluding, for example, tug/barge units or vessels carrying oil or other hazardous cargoes), with limits removed gradually as the pilot gained experience; renewable only upon showing of recent and suitable work as a pilot, and compliance with retraining requirements.

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION · Continuing and special-purpose professional development. · Pilotage boards. Guidelines would specify their composition, authori- ty, staff, proceedings, and accountability. Such boards, for example, could be established under state law as state or local agencies; members could be appoint- ed by and responsible to the government. Membership could include pilots, other subject matter and marine industry experts, and public representatives. Boards would need to meet regularly and frequently and would need adequate staff and other resources to administer pilotage and conduct investigations. Their proceed- ings could be recorded and open, and they could publish annual reports of their . . . achv~t~es. 139 . Pilotage certificates or other credentials. These certificates would au- thorize suitably qualified masters or mates to perform pilotage services aboard their vessels; they would be issued by pilotage boards for the ports and water- ways under their jurisdiction. Certificates of exemption would be issued after examinations only to persons serving as masters or mates of designated vessels, on specified routes or waters, who have suitable and recent experience on those vessels and routes. Certificates also could be granted to experienced docking masters for pilotage in tug-assisted transits of port areas adjacent to docks. Establish Code of Professional Ethics Some professional associations have established codes of professional eth- ics which members are asked or required to observe in order to remain a member in good standing. Although not universally adopted, such codes are available in the medical, legal, accounting, engineering, and environmental professions. Gen- erally in pilotage, there is an unwritten code of professional ethics that has been handed down as a part of the tradition of pilotage. This tradition could be devel- oped into a written code of professional ethics by professional organizations or trade associations. Such codes could appropriately address the issue of financial interest in support services beyond provision of pilot services and other ethical issues. Establish Universal Entry-level Qualifications A certain baseline of prior service, knowledge, and practical skills is needed in order to serve effectively as a pilot. The Federal First Class Pilot's License is effectively a prerequisite for most marine pilot development programs, and it thus is a de facto national entry-level standard. This standard could be made official and could be enhanced in terms of knowledge requirements, training, and validation of skills. Pilot candidates must meet minimum service criteria to qualify to take the examination for a federal pilot's license or endorsement. The examination pro-- cess provides for a minimum level of theoretical nautical knowledge as well as

140 MINDING THE HELM local knowledge. However, the federal licensing program by itself does not en- sure competence, because there is no quality control over pilot training through professional evaluation. Written recommendations from previous employers do provide some testimony to a candidate's competence. Conspicuously absent is a demonstration of piloting proficiency; such proficiency could be demonstrated through a required field test. Alternatively, marine simulation, although not fully perfected for all piloting tasks, could potentially be used to demonstrate or eval- uate proficiency for some tasks following the example of the federal radar ob- server's requirement. If federal and state-level pilotage were consolidated into a single pilotage system for each port or port region (an option discussed later in this chapter), then the existing federal pilotage requirements could be reformed into a pilotage certificate program, which would establish that an individual has demonstrated knowledge and skills at national entry-level standards for the profession. The certificate would convey no official sanction to engage in the profession. Such a certificate could be required as a prerequisite for all who wish to serve as a pilot, regardless of who administers pilotage. Require Emergency Shiphandling Training Most, if not all, federal and state pilot associations, docking master groups, and pilot companies follow very similar professional development concepts. Fun- damental elements include substantial prior marine service or equivalent appren- ticeships and extensive familiarization with pilotage routes, vessel behavior, and shiphandling. None of these groups, however, have requirements for developing emergency shiphandling or decision-making skills prior to licensing, and few have such requirements in place for pilot advancement. Marine pilots and dock- ing masters generally possess the shiphandling skills necessary for emergency maneuvering due to loss of propulsion or steering systems and to react to ex- treme maneuvering situations. But, individual capabilities for decision making under stress have usually been developed through actual service rather than through specialized advance preparation, such as marine simulation training. Thus, while a pilot or docking master may have the necessary shiphandling skills, they may have to learn how to think through emergency scenarios, assess emergency maneuvers, and make time-critical decisions under the stress of an actual crisis. If the ability to process emergency data has not been established beforehand, reaction time can be slowed and decisiveness impaired, increasing the probability that the pilot or docking master's actions will not achieve desired results. Marine simulation training, subject to the concerns noted previously, never- theless provides a means to prepare pilots for emergency shiphandling decision making and actions. Simulations of this type also could be used to screen pilot

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 141 apprentices and licensed pilots for ability or continued ability to perform under stress. Require Continuing Professional Development There are few formal requirements for continuing professional development once a pilot is fully qualified, although some state and federal pilot associations voluntarily promote such development, and some states are making it a require- ment. There is also no formal network for ensuring that information about chang- es involving regulations, pilotage authority policies, or other matters affecting the piloting profession is systematically disseminated to all pilots and docking masters. The piloting profession could help itself by establishing and widely distributing newsletters for active pilots and docking masters. Requirements could be established by either associations or governing authorities for continu- ing development or refresher training in theory and practical application of skills. This training could include marine simulations and classroom study. In addition to the primary objectives of increasing and refreshing knowledge and enhancing proficiency, continuing professional development requirements can serve as one means of motivating pilots to meet the expectations for highly professional services from licensing authorities, the marine community, and the public. Require Pilot Recertification There are few requirements for periodic recertification of knowledge, skills, and performance once a pilot is fully qualified. Various methods could be em- ployed to gauge a pilot's continued suitability for service or unrestricted status. These methods include written examinations, spot checks by pilot examiners, check rides, shiphandling simulations (within the limits of capabilities), and re- view of performance history. Because of the nature of their business relation- ships and liability concerns, state and federal marine pilot associations have not adopted these measures for evaluating their colleagues. Pilot governing authori- ties have not adopted such measures either. However, their oversight responsi- bilities make licensing authorities suitable candidates for conducting such as- sessments. Qualified pilots could be appointed as pilot examiners under the authority of the licensing body, thereby providing a means for professionals with superior credentials to assess the performance of other members of their associa- tions. Through a recertification program, bad habits could be detected and cor- rected, needs for refresher training pinpointed, and performance problems re- quiring further professional assessment identified. A complete recertification program would also include provisions for a physical examination to insure that there are no physical conditions that would impair performance.

142 Verification of Professional Competence MINDING THE HEEM Professional development, regardless of the licensing authority, could be improved through either voluntary accreditation or formal approval processes to satisfy national standards. Instructors also could be certified to prescribed stan- dards, including attendance at an instructors' course as in aviation, thereby im- proving consistency of training. Yet, while there are good reasons for verifying pilot professional competence, it is not clear whether the infrastructure and pro- fessional expertise available are sufficient to support a professional validation program, either using vessels as the media or through simulation. If a formal approval process were chosen, the approving authority could be the Coast Guard. Only the Coast Guard operates a national infrastructure for maritime operations and licensing and has a longstanding credible record of service in these areas. On the other hand, there is concern over whether the Coast Guard has sufficient resources and resident technical expertise to set or validate pilot qualifications. Moreover, an expanded Coast Guard role could be viewed as a further regulatory intrusion into company operating practices. Actual or per- ceived gaps in the Coast Guard's technical expertise for verifying competency could be filled by advisory bodies or special commissions, which could be staffed by the Coast Guard but with qualified practitioners from the marine community (or government sources) serving as examiners. A variant would be to accredit piloting profession training programs so that completion of training satisfied national proficiency requirements, following the example of Coast Guard- approved marine education and training curricula for the purpose of satisfying marine licensing requirements. Alternatives to Coast Guard administration include appointment of another federal agency or of a federal commission for this purpose. If voluntary program accreditation or instructor certification were required, a jointly sponsored orga- nization involving government representatives and marine pilot organizations or an existing accreditation organization could be used. Each approach would re- quire a modest commitment of resources. Potentially, measures for demonstrat- ing or validating proficiency as an element of professional development could be built into national standards for program accreditation or approval. Well-quali- fied federally and state-licensed pilots could be appointed as assessors to evalu- ate pilot candidates, providing the local expertise that would be necessary to determine fitness. Such an approach would draw on existing resources and thus would not require an expansion of the federal infrastructure to administer a full- scale program to validate professional competence. This approach also would provide a means to establish the credibility of accredited professional develop- ment programs throughout the marine community and with the public.

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION Establish Vessel Type and Side Criteria for Federal Pilotage 143 Federal rules allow a master or mate with a pilotage license or endorsement for any gross tons to pilot any vessel without regard to its type and with little regard to its size. (An exception is when the Coast Guard OCMI issuing the license or endorsement has limited it, such as to tug and barge combinations, because of an individual's experience. No data are available that indicate the frequency of this practice.) By contrast, shipping and towing companies general- ly provide for progressive advancement of their employees. Some state pilotage systems require progressive advancement. But like the federal system, some state pilotage systems do not categorize pilot qualifications or provide for pro- gressive advancement, although this generally happens in practice. In recogni- tion of the fact that vessels handle differently depending on their hull form, mass, and propulsion and steering systems, pilotage requirements could be es- tablished according to vessel type (insofar as this reflects different handling characteristics, e.g., tug and barge, ship, ferry) and size to establish a reasonable progression allowing licensed pilots to advance their skills. Categories of ship (e.g., tanker and bulk carrier, containership, liner) may be appropriate for re- stricted shallow water conditions, however, as all ships are affected by the same hydrodynamic forces, size is the dominant factor in ship behavior (MacElrevey, 1988~. If this approach were adopted for federal pilotage, masters and mates of ships and tugs could continue to perform pilotage, if properly credentialed, but the criteria for obtaining pilotage endorsements would become more stringent. Only individuals with substantial service aboard a specific vessel (or class of vessels) within a size range could qualify for pilotage on a given route. Of course, operational and economic implications of this alternative would need to be assessed thoroughly before implementation. Mooring masters permanently employed by an operating company but not a member of a vessel crew also could qualify for similar service. Under this scheme, the occasional practice of temporarily employing a licensed federal pilot (who may lack proper experi- ence) simply to satisfy a regulatory requirement (and thus circumvent its intent) would be diminished or eliminated. Shipping and towing industry companies might be inconvenienced. However, the traditional principle that a master is best qualified to handle the master's own vessel would be preserved to the degree that masters were able to obtain federal pilotage endorsements. If federal pilotage were to be enhanced through vessel- and route-specific criteria, the federal system for coastwise vessels would be much closer in form and function to rigorous pilotage systems found in some European countries. Other countries require an examination and field test prior to issuing certificates of exemption, and the certificates may not be applicable for some cargoes or weather conditions. If such a change were successfully implemented and if it also were adopted for U.S.-flag vessels in foreign trade, it could help provide a

144 MINDING THE HELM basis for abandoning dual pilotage for each pilotage route in favor of a single pilotage system for each port region. Pilotage based on trade could be replaced with pilotage based on vessel flag. Of course, an administrative body for the single pilotage system in each pilotage district would have to be chosen. Local or state authorities could handle this responsibility if their program were accredited or approved and operated in accordance with acceptable national standards. Relieve Federal Pilots of Non-Pilotage Duties Under the federal pilotage rules applicable to coastwise vessels, the master, mate, or operator is authorized to perform pilotage if the individual holds the appropriate credential or qualifies as an "acting as" pilot for towing industry vessels under 10,000 gross tons and ships under 1,600 gross tons. A vessel officer or operator on watch who serves as its pilot, with responsibility for navi- gation, also remains responsible for watch officer duties, unless assisted by a second officer or operator. Such assistance allows a deck officer piloting the vessel to concentrate solely on navigation without distraction. It is generally more available on ships than on coastwise towing vessels. Distractions from navigation responsibilities are common where one person routinely performs all wheelhouse, navigation, and piloting functions, as is common aboard coastwise towing vessels. When marine pilots are directing and controlling a ship's maneuvers in the presence of a full bridge team (master, mate, and helmsman), the mate performs watch officer duties and, with the master, provides navigation support to the pilot. This traditional arrangement can be stressed, however, in some cases where the helmsman position has been eliminated (for example, following installation of advanced navigation systems), and manual steering is necessary. In such situ- ations, either the mate or the master must take the helm, a new task that may distract from their principal duties (if the bridge is not configured to fully sup- port this task). Or, in a traditional bridge configuration, the master must call another crewmember to the bridge to man the helm. In the latter case, the crew- member performing the helmsman function may not have the necessary skills, because they are not developed or practiced aboard the ship. This situation may call for an additional bridge team member to ensure sufficient capabilities to handle all necessary tasks in pilotage waters without distracting from navigation responsibilities. Judging from past operating experience of high-technology pas- senger ferries in the Baltic Sea, fully integrated bridge systems (validated in terms of accuracy and reliability for use on a pilotage route) support manual steering by the mate or master qualified to pilot on that route. It is not clear how well this capability would transfer to situations where the master or mate is unfamiliar with the route and a pilot is directing and controlling the movement of the vessel. However, in the case of a mate performing manual steering, fully

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 145 integrated bridge systems would be expected to produce significantly better re- sults than does a traditional bridge configuration. Although not currently required to do so, some shipowners or masters may place an additional watch officer on the bridge when transiting difficult waters. As required by OPA 90, the Coast Guard has issued a final rule that mandates a second officer on watch on tankers of 1,600 or more gross tons operating on U.S. navigable waters. This rule applies to both coastwise and foreign trade vessels, and it "will allow one officer to concentrate on the safe movement of the tanker through the waterway while the other officer assists as necessary with navigation and performs other important watch functions" (58 FR 88:27629~. The rule could be expanded to cover tank barges that are subject to a federal pilotage require- ment, either for waters that pose difficult operating conditions or where there is a special need, such as transits through congested harbors, confined waters with populated shorelines, or environmentally sensitive areas. Analysis of safety, eco- nomic, and environmental impacts would be necessary before considering ex- pansion of the rule. Closing Institutional Gaps Institutional gaps exist with respect to pilotage requirements for certain wa- ters and to official accountability. In some cases, institutional gaps exist because there is no apparent operational need for pilotage although there is jurisdiction. This is the case for foreign-trade vessels where the pilot boarding area is located inside of three nautical miles. The same general situation exists for federal pilot- age because pilotage requirements are linked by regulations to the boundary line rather than the territorial sea. It is expected that the master is capable of safely navigating to the pilot boarding area, although some marine accidents have oc- curred due to faulty approaches (Associated Press, 1994; Cahill, 1983, 1985; NTSB, l991b). Except where pilot boarding areas are already located offshore due to operational needs, the committee found no compelling operational reason that would justify universal relocation of pilot boarding areas to the three mile line, much less to the 12 mile international boundary. However, for environmen- tally sensitive areas, pilotage authorities might consider special pilotage regula- tions insofar as jurisdiction extends to these areas. It appears that most approach problems could be effectively addressed through marine traffic regulation (Chap- ter 5), particularly since vessel traffic service operations could be designed to cover areas seaward of pilotage jurisdictions. The Coast Guard has advised the committee that it is considering rulemak- ing that would authorize the master of a coastwise vessel to act as pilot between the three mile territorial sea and the boundary line so that there is no gap in official accountability for pilotage. As a practical matter, the master is already accountable to U.S. licensing authorities for navigation. However, if the Coast Guard were to apply such a rule to foreign trade vessels, then the master of a

46 MINDING THE HELM foreign-flag ship could potentially be held accountable to the Coast Guard under U.S. licensing regulations. Substantial gaps exist in official accountability for services provided by docking and mooring masters, some bar and harbor pilots in California, and some harbor pilots in other states. The absence of an official pilotage require- ment and accountability to licensing authorities does not necessarily mean that piloting is not effective or not achieving acceptable safety levels, but it does mean that a satisfactory level of professional training and competence is not ensured by the licensing authorities. Cognizant licensing and marine safety au- thorities have not established a statistically valid measure of safety performance that is acceptable to the public and could serve as a benchmark for pilotage determinations. Performance monitoring by the Coast Guard of pilotage for coast- wise vessels, ships, or tugs with tows, is at best limited. Still, the public has demonstrated a strong lack of tolerance for marine accidents resulting in major pollution or substantial loss of life. Where official accountability does not exist, it is because state jurisdiction has not been fully exercised over vessels in foreign trade and the Coast Guard has not exercised its secondary jurisdiction to fill the void. Because pilotage for these vessels is a state responsibility, state governments or local pilotage boards or commissions could quickly close gaps in jurisdiction, and thus improve ac- countability. They could issue state licenses to docking and mooring masters with or without consolidating them into existing state pilot organizations, or they could require existing state-licensed pilots to direct and control all vessel move- ments in pilotage waters, as the Coast Guard does for coastwise trade. If the states do not fill these gaps, the Coast Guard can propose rules under existing enabling legislation to require federally-licensed pilots (Hall, 1992; USCG, 1990a). As discussed earlier, the Coast Guard has begun rulemaking to establish official accountability in certain waters of California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. The state of Massachusetts has already responded to this Coast Guard initiative by requiring state pilotage for foreign-trade vessels operating in the Cape Cod Canal. Coast Guard action to close remaining gaps in official accountability in California and East Coast ports is contemplated.) iAs this report was being completed, there was an interesting development in foreign-trade pilot- age. In March 1994? an American shipping and towing company began bi-weekly foreign trade service between the Port of Memphis on the Mississippi River and Latin America using a 998-foot containership (Sansbury. 1993). Foreign-trade commerce has not been of sufficient volume in the past to have motivated the establishment of state pilotage requirements for Mississippi River waters in the states of Arkansas. Mississippi. and Tennessee. The American company that initiated foreign trade service and charter the foreign-flag ship that is providing service on the route, has as a matter of company policy after consultation with the Coast Guard and state pilots in Louisiana (who are providing pilot services to Natchez, Mississippi), required that piloting be under the direction of a federally-licensed pilot on river waters north of the Louisiana-Mississippi state border. Pilotage services are being provided by a combination of state-licensed pilots with federal pilotage endorse- ments and federally-licensee! pilots (Pat Johnson, Dixie Carriers, personal communication. April 11. 1994).

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION Jurisdictional Gaps in Ship Pilotage, Docking, and Mooring 147 While it is desirable to close existing gaps for vessels in foreign trade, this must not be done in such a way that the very intent is circumvented. The objec- tive of closing the jurisdictional gap is to ensure the use of local experts orga- nized to provide pilotage services in a specific pilotage district and who are regulated by and accountable to that pilotage district's licensing authorities. Simply requiring a federally-licensed pilot for foreign trade vessels could create a situation in which anyone with a federal pilot's license or endorsement for the route could offer independent service or could be employed as a member of a foreign-flag vessel's crew to provide pilotage service. To guard against these possibilities, special provisions must be made to ensure the use of locally based marine pilots, docking masters, and mooring masters operating under the oversight of pilotage district licensing authorities. One option would be to permit services only by associations approved by the Coast Guard or accredited by an accountable third party. Alternatively, the Coast Guard could establish a pilotage system for each port where state authorities do not close existing jurisdictional and accountability gaps. Enabling legislation and changes in existing Coast Guard concepts for pilotage administration may be required to implement some aspects of this option. Docking, Undocking, and Vessel Transport Services The gaps in official accountability and the exercise of pilotage jurisdiction for docking and mooring are current topics of interest to government, marine industry, and the public, and these issues have become very controversial. There are three ways in which official accountability could be established over docking masters. They are (1) to establish a federal requirement for federal pilot's licens- es (discussed earlier), (2) to create separate state licensing procedures for dock- ing masters, or (3) to integrate docking and mooring masters into state pilotage systems by issuing them state licenses and making them members of an existing pilot association. Any of the options would effectively close the gaps; none stands out as substantially better than the others except that options 2 and 3 better fit the local-expert approach favored by the committee. In implementing any of these options, issues of concern include preserving the integrity of servic- es now provided; local economic considerations; and, depending on the option chosen, organizational and cultural factors. Another approach now used in Delaware (Box 3-9) is to require a state- licensed pilot to be aboard for all foreign-trade vessel movements in a pilotage jurisdiction (some state pilot associations require their members to remain aboard in the absence of an official requirement to do so). Although the state-licensed pilot is accountable for services the pilot provides, including docking the vessel,

148 . ~ : , ~ ~ ~ ~ i. .. :: ::::::::::::~::::::::::::: ::: :::::::::: A: . ..,~,..~,~, .~. hi., i. ... ~ a. . Gil.,. . . . .,~. ~ ., ~ ...~, .. ~ . . .. i.. s. . . MINDING THE HELM ~ ~ .. ~ :::::::::::: :~:::~:~:~ :::: .............. .. - .... : . . . '. '.' .'.'~.,~''',"~'.''".': '."'.:"'~.'''"""~', .. ., ~ .,, ~ ~.~, ~. ~ ~ i ....... ~ i ~ Hi. ~ Gil . . . . . . .. . . . ..... ...... this approach does not establish accountability for docking masters if they are used. In 1990, following a series of groundings and other accidents involving tank vessels and oil spills in the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Coast Guard convened a board of inquiry into these accidents. The board's report (known as the Henn report, for its chairman) concluded that docking masters should be subject to either federal or state licensing requirements (USCG, 1990a). Federal action in response to the Henn report to close gaps in state pilotage are in progress, as previously discussed. Related state action has been attempted in New York and New Jersey (Journal of Commerce, 1992b) but has not been brought to closure. Some other states, such as Pennsylvania and Delaware, re- quire the state pilot to be stationed on the bridge throughout the entire voyage, including the docking evolution, even though a docking master usually is em- ployed. In these cases, the state-licensed pilot is not accountable for a docking master's actions but is available to perform docking and undocking evolutions if requested to do so by the master. Some state pilot associations, as a matter of policy, have established the same requirement. The Coast Guard has expressed concern that requiring federal pilotage for intraport moves and docking, without establishing a local pilotage system, could lead to a proliferation of individuals attempting to provide such services. An "open" pilotage requirement also could result in employment of U.S. nationals holding federal licenses or endorsements aboard vessels engaged in foreign trade,

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 149 thereby undermining state pilotage programs. The Coast Guard has consistently indicated that it does not wish to establish and administer local pilotage systems, other than the existing federal system for the Great Lakes. Extending state re- quirements for pilotage to and from the pier would close the licensing gap. In any case, the institutional gaps in accountability could be closed through legisla- tive or regulatory action by either the states or the Coast Guard without disrupt . . ng services. The second option mentioned earlier is for state or local commissions to create a separate license for docking masters affiliated with recognized docking master or pilot associations. If adopted, this approach would enfranchise existing associations while also perpetuating current docking master affiliations with tug companies. The docking master's ability to engage in the profession would be controlled by both official governance and market forces. The third option is for state or local commissions to consolidate docking master services into existing state pilot systems. This approach would sever the relationship between tugboat companies and docking masters and likely would be opposed. Quality assurance responsibilities for docking master skills would be lifted from the tug companies, thus reducing their ability to protect their investment by influencing who will direct and control the movements of their tugs at vulnerable times. Tug companies with affiliated docking masters oppose measures that might impair their relationships with them. At the same time, state pilot associations and commissioners oppose consolidation because of concerns over the ability to economically support an expanded number of state-licensed pilots. Yet, both docking masters and state-licensed pilots continue to operate in East Coast ports, although reductions in the number of calls in some ports such as New York have reduced the number of pilots that can be supported. The piloting profession by nature does not respond quickly to changes in shipping trends and practices. Consolidation of docking masters, harbor pilots, and bar pilots was accom- plished in the San Francisco Bay area. The transition has not been entirely smooth; cross training was required, and debate continues even today after ten years of transition. This debate focuses on economics rather than safety perfor- mance (Thomas, 1993; Wastler, 1992a,c, 1993c,d,e). Nevertheless, this approach potentially could be employed to bring all piloting services under a single system in each port. State pilots also oppose making docking and undocking services subject to compulsory pilotage that requires pilot direction and control. One reason is their concern, as independent contractors, over potential liability for damage to a vessel or facility during docking evolutions. Shipping companies likewise op- pose measures that would prohibit a vessel's master or mate from docking the master's or mate's own vessel. Marine pilots and company management reason that the master or senior mate on certain vessels with unique operating character

150 MINDING THE HELM istics, who has extensive familiarity with both the vessel's behavior and the route, is typically the most qualified to conduct docking and undocking maneuvers. Redefining the Pilot's Role The traditional role of the marine pilot is expanding under strain. First, marine pilots must maintain effective master-pilot working relationships under increasingly difficult operating conditions. Second, marine pilots are increasing- ly being expected, if not actually required, by some governing authorities to act as quasi-public officials in detecting and reporting substandard ships and defi- cient onboard operating conditions. Master-Pilot Working Relationship The traditional master-pilot relationship provides both shared decision-mak- ing responsibility and a means of direct safety oversight. It is not useful or even possible to define the pilot's duties or the master-pilot relationship more specif- ically by law or regulation because of the infinite variety of circumstances that might arise. These issues could be left to the courts and administrative bodies on a case-by-case basis; numerous decisions on related questions already have been handed down over the years. The related provisions of state laws-making the pilot either an adviser to the master or a servant of the shipowner probably are intended to deal with liability for damages rather than the pilot's role in naviga- tion. Questions of liability involve matters of public policy that are beyond the scope of this report. Marine Pilot Responsibilities Relative to Substandard Ships It is likely that some officials will increasingly expect marine pilots to detect and alert them to substandard conditions aboard ships. To formalize this process, criteria could be developed for use by pilots in detecting substandard ships and crews and in taking action to ensure that federal and state interests in public and environmental safety were satisfied. Pilots would fill an alerting rather than an enforcing role, except to the extent that the pilot can decline to provide services if the vessel is patently unsafe or perhaps move it to a safe anchorage to await correction of deficiencies. The responsibility of the pilot to direct the navigation of the vessel already involves the use of reasonable care by conferring with the master and perhaps other means to be sure that the vessel may be navigated safely to its destina- tion. If the vessel is found to be unseaworthy, then the pilot can decline to provide services by notifying the proper authorities. If a problem develops after the pilot boards, then the transit can be halted if necessary (for example, by anchoring the vessel). The pilot also has the option of notifying appropriate

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 151 authorities regarding deficiencies observed that threaten vessel, port, environ- mental, or public safety. While this authority is customary and in some cases codified, it is not widely exercised. Informal reports (often without attribution) are more common. Burdening the pilot with ancillary duties could create rather than alleviate safety problems. Additional responsibilities that do not pertain to marine pilots' inherent or prescribed operational responsibilities could interfere with their abil- ity to direct and control vessel maneuvering, thus compromising their primary role. However, pilots are in a position to detect some operating problems or deficiencies from their normal duty station on the bridge. There needs to be a balance between the pilot's primary purpose and responsibility aboard a ship and the provision of support to marine safety authorities. In the committee's judg- ment, attempting to use the pilot as a law enforcement official is counterproduc- tive to piloting duties. Rather than burden the pilot with enforcing national or state interests, it would be more beneficial to ensure adequate vessel-operating conditions by other means and to improve vessel master and bridge team capa- bilities to oversee or support the pilot. A combination of international coopera- tion and port-state initiatives would be required to motivate vessel owners and management and operating companies to provide quality crews and adequate bridge teams. If marine pilots are indeed expected to act as quasi-government officials providing a line of defense against substandard ships and crews, then it would be desirable to find ways to strengthen this responsibility without jeopardizing the master/pilot/bridge team working relationships that are essential to onboard co- operation and safe navigation. Methods could be developed for alerting cogni- zant authorities of actual or potential problems that would affect safe navigation. As in the case of the master-pilot relationship, however, legal definitions may best be left to case-by-case determination by the courts and administrative bodies. improving Pilotage in the Towing Industry The Coast Guard has not systematically assessed the effectiveness of its 1985 rule regarding tug and barge pilotage. Further, correspondence and testi- mony to the committee reflected substantial concern that safety could be endan- gered by inadequate standards for coastwise towing vessels and by the lack of official pilotage credentials and standards for operators of inland towboats and barge trains. There are insufficient data to determine statistically whether the piloting of tugs and barges is any more or less safe than the piloting of ships. Generally, operators of both coastal and inland tug-and-barge combinations at least those employed by large and responsible companies-are required by their employers to have more experience on local routes and in vessel handling than the mini

152 MINDING THE HELM mum standards for federal pilotage, particularly for the transport of petroleum cargoes (AWO, 1992b; Farrell, 1991; Sanborn, 19913. The existence of these company requirements shows that these companies consider federal criteria in- sufficient for their needs (Sanborn, 19911. This state of affairs implies a need to strengthen federal pilotage requirements for coastwise towing vessels. While market forces may be sufficient to motivate attention to safety perfor- mance in some cases, they do not ensure universal concern. As with pilotage generally, official quality control to ensure professional development and safety performance is absent, and informal control is not consistently applied. Further, the safety of tug and barge navigation is of particular concern-as has been noted by the Coast Guard, NTSB, and others-because of the hazardous cargoes involved and the potential for marine pollution resulting from collisions, ground- ings, and other accidents. The Coast Guard's authorization for vessel operators to "act as pilots" ac- knowledges that there is a need for pilotage but does not provide assurance that the requirements are met. A tug operator is given status as a form of licensed pilot without determination or certification of professional competency to serve in this capacity. Although assessing pilotage in the inland towing industry is beyond the scope of the present study, the navigation and piloting of inland towboats and barge trains is of interest, because these vessels share pilotage waters with ocean- going ships and often transport oil or hazardous cargoes. The nature of pilotage in the inland towing industry certainly needs to be understood by the pilots of oceangoing ships that may encounter inland vessel traffic. The Coast Guard can take disciplinary action against the federal license of an individual operating an inland towing vessel. However, there is no pilotage requirement (or license). The absence of a pilotage requirement means there is no systematic official oversight to ensure the professional competence of vessel operators to pilot tug and barge combinations in waters shared with oceangoing ships. Some companies in the inland towing industry employ rigorous on-thejob pilot and master development programs, but the full extent of this practice is unknown. There are no data or analyses that demonstrate a safety-based need to expand pilotage in the inland towing industry. To cover the possibility of any deficiencies, however, the pilotage licensing process could be extended to in- clude inland services. Or perhaps an equivalent effect could be achieved through accreditation of towing industry professional development programs for person- nel piloting vessels and the establishment of associated standards by a credible organization having official accountability.2 2In 1988, after a long study and public meetings and comments, the Coast Guard proposed to adopt a rule (still pending) under which tug masters and operators would be eligible for federal pilot licenses for tug and barge combinations if they met the following requirements; (1) 5 years of service on tug and barge combinations of at least 5,000 gross tons, with 2 years on combinations of at

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 153 (consolidating Pilotage into a Single Program for Each Port and Waterway System Pilotage in the United States is a patchwork of laws, regulations, customary practices, overlapping jurisdictions, and gaps in coverage. This approach has developed in a piecemeal manner. The number of coastwise transits by U.S.-flag ships, upon which the federal pilotage program is predicated, has greatly dimin- ished. Theoretically, pilotage could be provided under a single program in each pilotage region without adversely affecting safety by building the revised system around the strong points of the existing state and federal pilotage systems. Exist- ing requirements for a federal pilot's license could be reformed as a certificate program to establish uniform entry-level criteria for all pilots. The fact that U.S. ship masters and senior mates serving permanently aboard the same U.S.-flag vessel or sister vessels on regular routes can under these select conditions poten- tially achieve high levels of piloting expertise for their vessels could be acknowl- edged through a pilotage credential program that verifies competency. Such an option would also satisfy the economic concerns of operating companies with respect to the cost of independent pilots. Credentials could be issued as vessel- and route-specific endorsements to the federal pilot's license or a master or mate's license, or could be a separate authorization issued by the pilotage licens- ing authority for jurisdiction over the pilotage route. Because of the importance of pilotage, any changes to the current approach would need to be carefully planned and executed to ensure that safety perfor- mance is not compromised and that economic issues are addressed equitably. Nevertheless, implementation of improved standards appears to be possible. Consolidating Ship Pilotage Under a Single Authority All ships could be subject to the same pilotage authority regardless of flag or trade. This authority could be federal or state. Federal interests could be served by combining some of the previously discussed approaches into a nation- al program. The first step would be to establish national standards and means for their implementation and then to bring all elements of the consolidated system up to these standards. Pilotage of all ships then could be administered under the state pilotage concept, subject to establishment and operation of pilotage sys- tems meeting basic national guidelines for administration and standards for pro- fessional competence and accountability. State authorities would continue to least 10,000 tons, while actually acting' as master, mate. or operator (not merely holding a license as such), and (2) completion of the same number of round trips over the route applied for as are required for other applicants for federal pilotage endorsements, with two thirds of the trips on combinations of at least 1,600 tons. This proposal offers an example of improved standards that might be appropriate for "licensed" persons who "serve as" pilots under the Coast Guard's 1985 rule.

154 MINDING THE HELM have the authority to shape pilotage rules to meet specific local needs. A system organized this way would avoid the present duplications of staff and costs. Tran- sitional arrangements would be needed for marine pilots licensed under the present federal system, to transfer them into the respective pilotage systems for the ports served. I'nple~nenting National Standards and a Port-Level Pilotage System The objective of national standards of pilotage, administered by a port-level system, would be to ensure the development of qualified pilots for all vessels subject to pilotage requirements, whether in coastwise or foreign trade. These standards would also form the foundation upon which port-level pilotage sys- tems could be formed. Administration would be decentralized, conducted by regional or local authorities responsible for accommodating port-level concerns. The port-level authorities would ensure adequate professional development of pilots, issue licenses, and oversee pilotage administration and pilot performance in their ports and waterways under rules that meet or exceed national standards. These pilotage requirements could be supplemented as necessary by additional rules to reflect changing port-level needs for achieving safe navigation and pro- tection of coastal populations and environments, within the limits of state juris- diction. The Coast Guard still would exercise its COTP responsibilities as they pertained to navigation, piloting, and port safety. Correction of deficiencies that might arise in a port-level pilotage system would be best addressed at that level or close to it; however, if other remedies fail, the Congress would continue to have legislative authority to enact any laws needed. A major implementation issue for the port-level pilotage-system concept is the manner in which national standards of the profession would be developed and implemented. As described earlier, the general approach to professional reg- ulation in the United States involves reliance upon professional organizations within major disciplines to develop or propose standards, which then may be incorporated into laws, regulations, or licensing requirements. Pilots as well as state and federal pilotage authorities would need to be intimately involved in the formation of any national standards to ensure their effectiveness and their accep- tance by the professionals they affect. Similarly, a broad range of interested parties who rely on pilotage also need to be satisfied with the quality of the standards; such parties have safety, economic, and environmental-protection con- cerns associated with the movement of waterborne commerce in ports and water- ways. Finally, as with other professions where there is public trust involved, public interests need to be represented in the setting of standards of pilotage. Several approaches could be employed in the setting and oversight of pro- fessional standards. Sometimes professional standards are developed by profes- sional bodies and either applied voluntarily within a profession or incorporated into official rules and regulations. At the state level, standards for pilot develop

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 155 ment have been incorporated to some degree into some pilotage laws and regula- tions, but performance standards have not been established. Although much of the expertise required to develop standards for pilotage rests with the pilots, a more representative process would provide a basis for standards reflecting broad- er community interests. A federal agency could be designated or a commission with a permanent staff could be established to develop and issue national standards applicable to all pilotage jurisdictions, federal and state. Initial questions are (1) whether the setting of pilotage standards and oversight of their implementation would be best performed by a federal agency or by an independent commission, and (2) wheth- er, in the case of a commission, it should be advisory or have regulatory status. Only two federal agencies appear to be reasonable candidates for such a role if assigned to an agency, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the Coast Guard. MARAD has a longstanding mission in marine education and training, oper- ates a federal maritime academy supporting the merchant marine, and supports state-level maritime academies. It does not have pilotage administration respon- sibilities and thus has not been directly involved in the national pilotage debate. The agency has a sufficient infrastructure and, with access to the necessary ex- pertise, could establish national standards. However, MARAD would need sub- stantial added resources and regulatory authority to develop the nationwide administrative infrastructure necessary to oversee implementation of national standards at the field level. The Coast Guard has considerable responsibilities for and experience with administration of coastwise and Great Lakes pilotage. The Coast Guard could promulgate regulations that incorporated professional standards developed, for example, by an agency task force, professional association, advisory committee, or independent commission. The agency has a nationwide, regional, and port- level infrastructure that could be adapted for implementing national standards at the port level. However, representatives from the various segments of the marine community expressed concern to the committee that the Coast Guard may have (1) insufficient expertise to develop credible national pilotage standards, (2) lack of resolve to set rigorous pilotage qualification requirements, (3) insufficient professional expertise and resources that would be necessary to oversee pilot performance at the port level, and (4) insufficient working relationships in many port areas to obtain professional advice from the marine community. The Coast Guard's ability to access professional expertise from external sources at the port level varies because of factors such as the presence of proprietary and special interests within the various segments of the marine community, varying capabil- ities of Coast Guard port-level officials to work with the commercial and public sectors, and little apparent federal support for additional advisory committees at the port level. Further, these factors and the history of pilotage, especially the lack of rigorous federal pilotage qualification requirements, suggests to the com

156 MINDING THE HELM mittee that direct Coast Guard oversight of a port-level pilotage system would not be accepted as credible by state and local pilotage authorities or state-li- censed pilots. Use of DOT-chartered advisory committees is a longstanding method for providing the Coast Guard with advice on safety, operations, waterways man- agement, and professional development. At the national level, such advisory bodies include the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, Navigation Safety Advi- sory Committee, Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Advisory Committee, and the recently authorized Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) (USCG, 1993a). All are chartered under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix I) to advise the Secretary of Trans- portation, via the Commandant of the Coast Guard, for the purpose of shaping policy for the marine industry. MERPAC is specifically charged to address mat- ters relating to the training, qualification, licensing, certification, and fitness of seamen (crewman and officers aboard ship) serving in the U.S. Merchant Marine (USCG, 1993a). The committee is not specifically charged to address pilotage issues. Similar DOT-chartered committees operate at several field locations, such as New York, New Orleans, and Houston, to advise the Coast Guard on safety matters of local interest. These organizations are generally not designed to con- duct in-depth assessments, although such activities may be feasible for some issues. The Coast Guard can to some degree influence the selection of committee members and topics. All meetings must be publicly announced in the Federal Register, and all meetings are open to public participation. The advice of adviso- ry committees is nonbinding. Another option is establishment of a commission through which nationally accepted and applicable standards could be developed. An independent national commission on pilotage, navigation, and waterway safety, with multidisciplinary membership with appropriate professional and technical expertise and capable of effectively representing pilot, federal, state, marine industry, and public inter- ests, could be formed to develop standards for pilotage as well as other port and waterways safety matters. Technical and administrative support could be provid- ed. Such a commission could be responsible for: . developing national standards for pilotage and marine traffic regulation; · developing and administering procedures and processes for accreditation of pilotage and marine traffic regulation systems in accordance with nationally accepted and applicable standards; · defining, promoting, and assisting in the implementation of a consolidat- ed port-level system of pilotage; and · providing expert advice to the Coast Guard and other pilotage authorities on marine pilotage and marine traffic regulation matters. A national commission has been proposed before (Ashe, 1984), but the concept envisioned here is much broader in application and includes multidisciplinary

PILOTAGE ADMINISTRATION 157 membership. Pilotage systems could be accredited by the commission (or per- haps organizations approved by the commission) to the national standards, but operated by local pilotage authorities using the existing pilotage infrastructure. What is envisioned is an accreditation program similar in concept to those used to accredit college and university programs that are designed to prepare individ- uals for professional careers. Although the national commission would not have operational responsibility, it could encourage and improve accountability by pe- riodically reviewing the performance of local pilotage systems as an element of the accreditation renewal process. It is envisioned that such a process would be accomplished in consultation and coordination with cognizant pilotage authori- ties and marine pilot associations, users of pilotage services, the Coast Guard, and other appropriate parties. Consultations also could be conducted with port- level advisory committees. As this overall approach is innovative, it would be advisable to periodically review the performance of the national commission so that its success could be gauged and any needed mid-course corrections could be made. A corrective action mechanism would be needed for cases when a port-level p~iotage system did not initially achieve accreditation or subsequently did not fully maintain the national standards. Backup provisions could include, for ex- ample, probationary status until corrective actions are completed and full accred- itation restored (the committee's preferred option). In the case of a commission without regulatory status, correction of deficiencies would rely on professional and public pressure that could develop in response to the loss of accreditation. In the case of a commission with regulatory status, additional options to motivate corrective action could be established. Probationary status to permit corrective action would again be preferred to more stringent options. In an extreme scenar- io where less intrusive measure proved ineffective, a pilotage system could be temporarily administered by a professionally credible administrator until the pi- lotage system were again accredited to national standards. Such an administrator would need to be acceptable to all affected parties, insofar as practical. The latter approach to pilotage administration outlined in this section mim- ics federal laws related to safety and environmental protection that set basic standards and authorize states to establish and administer more stringent rules reflecting local needs. (Such laws include, for example, the intrastate pipeline provisions of the Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Acts and provisions of the Clean Water Act.) In order for the commission concept to work, considerable implementation analysis beyond the scope of this report will be necessary. In particular, goals and objectives, commission membership, accountability, leadership, administra- tive location, official status, subject matter expertise, and staff support will be important to success. Careful attention in each of these areas and effective, im- partial performance by the commission will also be needed to establish concept and commission credibility with the federal and state governments, marine pi

l5S MINDING THE HELM lots, the marine industry, and the public. In order to serve national interests in marine safety, commission membership needs to be carefully composed to as- sure balance and fair treatment as well as sufficiency of subject matter expertise. A relative small commission, about 5 to 7 members, would seem desirable to facilitate decision making. The commission's members would nevertheless need to be capable of effectively addressing the professional, technical, policy, and economic interests of the federal and state governments, marine pilots, the ma- rine community (including shipping and towing industry companies, and port authorities), merchant mariners, and the public insofar as these pertain to the commission's mission. Further, the individuals selected to serve would need to be capable of impartial and credible service. In developing nationally accepted standards, a considerable task by itself, the commission could appropriately in- volve representatives of the pilotage infrastructure and the marine industry.

Next: RISK, THE OPERATING ENVIRONMENT, AND SAFETY »
Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $95.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Large ships transporting hazardous cargoes, notorious marine accidents, and damage to marine ecosystems from tanker spills have heightened public concern for the safe navigation of ships.

This new volume offers a complete, highly readable assessment of marine navigation and piloting. It addresses the application of new technology to reduce the probability of accidents, controversies over the effectiveness of waterways management and marine pilotage, and navigational decisionmaking. The book also explores the way pilots of ships and tugs are trained, licensed, and held accountable.

Minding the Helm approaches navigational safety from the perspectives of risk assessment and the integration of human, technological, and organizational systems. Air and marine traffic regulation methods are compared, including the use of vessel traffic services.

With a store of current information and examples, this document will be indispensable to federal and state pilotage and licensing authorities and marine traffic regulators, the Coast Guard, pilot associations, and the shipping and towing industries. It will also interest individuals involved in waterway design, marine education, and the marine environment.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!