Vessel on Master’s Orders and Pilot’s Advice

“Vessel on Master’s orders and Pilot’s advice” – a common entry used in the bridge logbook when entering and leaving a port, but what does it mean?

It’s well known that in the vast majority of places around the world the presence of a pilot on the bridge does not relieve the Master or officer in charge of the watch from their duties or obligations for the safety of the ship. Yet there are still many cases where the Master appears to relinquish control to the pilot or fails to challenge a potentially unsafe instruction, sometimes resulting in an incident.

Follow or not?

If the pilot informs the Master to conduct a manoeuvre that results in an incident, will that prevent the Master being responsible? Almost certainly not, because ship management and navigation in most cases remain the responsibility of the Master.

This is illustrated by lines 170 and 171 of the NYPE 46 Charterparty which reads:

“…The owners to remain responsible for the navigation of the vessel…same as when trading for their own account….”  

In the un-safe berth case The Stork, one of the issues was whether the Master acted reasonably when following pilot’s advice on anchoring despite the Master having issues with the instruction. The court noted that pilots possess intimate local knowledge and concluded, “Of course, the master cannot transfer his responsibility to the pilot, but a master would be very imprudent if in a place of this sort he disregarded the advice of those with local knowledge unless he had very good reason for doing so.”

This means that the Master – in consultation with the bridge team – should assess any instruction given by the pilot to make sure that if the pilot’s instruction is carried out, the vessel will be safe.

In another case, The Vine, it was considered whether a terminal had a system to ensure the Master was informed of important features of the berth. The court decided that: “The fact that the pilot may have such knowledge does not detract from the importance of the master having such knowledge. For the master is responsible for the safe berthing of his vessel even though he may be advised by the pilot…Of course, orders will be “advised” by the pilot who in reality will determine the appropriate orders but the master must be in a position to reject the pilot’s advice if he considers it to be unsafe.”

Another common misconception is that the pilot’s suggestion constitutes an employment order which enables an owner to hold the charterer responsible or be indemnified. Mr Justice Staughton was clear in The Erechthion that whilst the orders of a harbour master to proceed to an anchorage were employment orders, the pilot’s suggestion as to where the vessel should anchor was a matter of navigation so the ultimate responsibility lies with Master. Although the charterer may pay for the pilot, this does not make the pilot the charterer’s servant. Accordingly, this does not mean that the charterer will be responsible to the owner for the pilot’s negligence (see Fraser v Bee [1900] 17 T.L.R. 101).

The certainty of disagreement

Disagreeing with a pilot is easier said than done. Commercial pressure often makes ignoring the pilot’s instructions very difficult. Masters are only too aware of the commercial consequences of missing a schedule or creating delays. However, it is very important that this is not an overriding factor in the Master’s decision.

Should the Master choose not to follow a pilot’s instruction, and this results in a delay or extra expenditure, a dispute will most likely follow. But if the Master chooses to follow the instruction and it results in an incident, again a dispute will follow.

Inevitably, there is a high risk of a dispute regardless of what choice the Master makes.  So how can a Master best equip themselves?

SOLAS on your side

SOLAS Chapter V regulation 34-1 states:

“the owner, the charterer, the company operating the ship, or any other person SHALL NOT prevent or restrict the master of the ship from taking or executing any decision which, in the master’s professional judgement, is necessary for the safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment.”

Considering SOLAS chapter V is one of the best tools at a Master’s disposal, they should ensure they remain in command and make a reasonable choice based on safety alone.

It is also imperative that the Master gathers relevant contemporaneous evidence to prove that the choice not to follow the pilot’s instructions was reasonable. For example, this can include:

• Risk assessments
• Tidal data
• Charts
• Passage plans
• Navigation warnings
• Echo sounder records
• VDR data
• Statements
• Photographs
• Checklists
• Master pilot exchanges
• The bridge logbook entries

Courts in the most part will sympathise with a Master who has considered the safety of his crew and the vessel and acted reasonably, even when there is a delay or additional expenditure as a result.

Should the Master follow the pilot’s instruction without thinking fully of the safety factors, and an incident occurs, then SOLAS Chapter V will work against the Master.

Our loss prevention guide “the Mariner’s Role in Collecting Evidence” is available to download in the Members’ Area of this website.

Authors:

Dimitra Capas (Solicitor)
John Southam (Exectutive (Loss Prevention))