correct. It is also true that even if the Pilot is on board, as of now, the legal stance is that all actions or commands given by the Pilot are deemed to be advice. Every port and canal or inland authority where there is mandatory pilotage has his or her own set of legislation and the same applies during the time of the vessel’s transit.
In the absence of any concrete investigation as per IMOs casualty code, there has been much speculation. Initial inconclusive investigations suggest that the vessel while navigating in the Suez Canal veered off due to a gusty sandstorm, The strong gust caused the bow to veer off and thereafter the excessive speed, windage area coupled with bank cushion effect caused a zig-zag movement for some time prior to running aground hard from the bow and the stern swinging thereafter causing the total blockage of the channel.
There have been no reports of human injury, pollution nor cargo damage, and initial investigation has ruled out mechanical or engine failure. Hence, the primary cause can be attributed to a manoeuvring error. This leads to the usual question of what were the Master and Pilot doing?
Was there a breakdown of Pilot/ Master interaction? It has come to light that the Master and Pilot were not on the same wavelength and the discussion on the bridge covered various different subjects. The bridge data recorder will reveal any such discussion, which may have been the major, or prime contributing factor leading to grounding of the vessel.
Here Captain L.K. Panda raised a valid question from his decades of experience in analysing findings of similar cases on behalf of the Marine Mercantile Department of India (MMD): “How can the Master be blamed for maneuvering errors when he has virtually no control and no dedicated training for such restricted passages’’ and that the local rules mandate a compulsory Pilot. One needs to ask rationally and not go by the archaic insurance rules or the so- called time-tested procedures where the Master is in total command and is the owner’s representative at all times. There has been a paradigm shift in maritime trade, the management process through the ISM principles, and the role of Master. Sadly, the role of the Master, though legally and theoretically remains as in charge of vessel and the owner’s representative, but the age-old principle is challenged now as in reality the control has
shifted more and more to shore. Within these practical realties, we have observed Masters being penalised for consequences over which they had no control, nor were they trained and made competent to execute such actions. There have numerous instances when the Master or ships staff trained and certified under the STCW Convention have been penalised for actions, which had no linkage to the safety Conventions. The port, costal or the canal authorities, while making pilotage mandatory, cannot absolve themselves from any responsibility and carry out the function with no liability while making mandatory pilotage.
There has to be a paradigm shift in thinking and the responsibility has to be shared by all who deem to make shipping safer and not leave it to the Master or ship’s staff to fend for themselves.
We have many landmark cases around the world where Pilots have had to share responsibility and apportionment of blame, but they have been pronounced after prolonged judiciary process unlike those Masters or ship’s staff who have been taken into custody like a criminal or kept on ships under some kind of “house-arrest”.
File source:
https://bit.ly/3b373TZ
The Report • June 2021 • Issue 96 | 101
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
