MarEx Mailbag
The Mailbag is again full this week, referencing last week’s lead editorial and a few other e-news articles, as well.
Last week, our lead piece highlighted the change over time being experienced by the maritime industry, especially here in the United States. Specifically, the article, entitled, “Growing Up a Little Now,” talked about how the maritime aspect of the intermodal supply chain had finally joined all others in terms of regulatory enforcement, prosecution and verifications. The article evoked some response from our readers. You can read our August 27th editorial by clicking HERE. Or, simply read on to see what our readers thought about the matter:
Joe,
An argument was being prepared in my mind that the Second Officer in 2009 would probably not be allowed out the gate to run and have an evening meal at his favorite restaurant because of the security measures at most terminals. Taking half an hour each way and paying several hundred dollars for the privilege would keep him safe from the evils of three beers. So, maybe you were over the top.
You are absolutely correct that going to sea is no longer any fun. I am glad for both of us that we have the times we had, but they are over. If we don't bring them back we risk having no one to sail.
Regards,
Captain Thomas W. Hudson, MNI
Operation Superintendent, Tanker
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Captain Hudson brings up a good point; one which I initially thought about adding to the story and probably should have. He references the fact that in 1982, leaving a tanker at berth 5 in Port Everglades involved stepping off the gangway and then strolling over to the next street over. Security was next to nonexistent. Today, Port Everglades sports some of the tightest security in the business. You can get in and out, but is it worth the hassle for a seaman who wants to go and get a meal ashore? Probably not. Our fictional Second Mate thought so, however. In any event, Captain Hudson’s letter brings up just one more aspect of changes that have come to the business. Read on for another opinion:
Joe:
Wow! Way over my head... It seems often times, that more regulation is not better, just more.
Oh!, you forgot to tell me why I feel so, so much safer after passing through airport security today than I did ten or fifteen years ago!
Regards,
John Rice
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: I doubt whether any of my editorial was over Mr. Rice's head (maybe it was over the top, though). The question of whether more regulation is better will always be at the sharp end of any debate that involves potential changes to the way any industry does business. I think that we probably are safer in some respects now than we were fifteen years ago. On the other hand, the threats have multiplied. Here’s another opinion:
Joe
About your article "Growing up a little now."
Great job, and the fictitious 2009 event, not off the mark at all.
Name withheld upon request
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: a vote to say my fictional depictions weren’t too far “over the top.” One more letter on this topic, actually my favorite this week, follows:
Hi Joe:
The pre/post Exxon Valdez article was great and mind you not too over the top despite what you might be hearing from a more reasonable USCG investigator…..not all of them are….
I am smiling here at my desk reflecting on a newly minted third mate on the USNS MARIAS running up to me in disbelief upon seeing a fairly large oil slick being driven toward the vessel by a stiff breeze in Mayport Naval Basin…..If you recall this was PRE Valdez/OPA 90 but that in no way relieved your agitation at being the “mate on watch” on what looked to be the only tanker amongst a bunch of naval vessels and the likely culprit as the source of the oil covering the basin. You asked my advice and if you recall I told you to call the 1-800 national response center number which as I recall did not answer and not being deterred you called the USCG Station Mayport, FL duly reporting the information concerning the spill until they asked your location at which time the call ended abruptly……and STILL not being satisfied we ended up rigging a containment boom around the MARIAS to keep the oil off her side as proof that it did not originate from our vessel……pretty extreme measures considering the time but effective nonetheless….
Good tanker mates have always strived to protect the marine environment before and after the Valdez incident….
Stay well
Best regards,
Mark
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: The writer was the Chief Mate on my ship way back in 1981. It was my first tanker assignment as a very young and inexperienced Third Mate and he describes the situation on board the ship exactly as how I remembered it. I was lucky to have him as a mentor on that occasion. Today, I’m guessing that the Coast Guard would have swooped down on us in force to investigate the situation. The MARIAS was an underway replenishment tanker and in those days, if I remember things correctly, no one was sweating the little dribbles that went over the side during sudden “disconnection / break aways” from two destroyers that would be taking on fuel from us at 14 knots in the Atlantic Ocean. On the other hand, it was an MSC vessel and we were working for the Navy. I wonder how those situations are being handled today. Thanks for writing, Mark!
The next letter references our August 6th lead piece referenced the DOJ’s recent press release on the COSCO BUSAN allision. That article, entitled, “Game Changer: Reflecting Back on the COSCO BUSAN Debacle,” was, far and away, the most widely opened article in this e-newsletter in more than two years. Not surprisingly, the article also triggered a flood of mail in similar volumes; too numerous to put all of them on line this week. This week, we got another belated entry. You can the editorial by clicking HERE. In that editorial, we also asked the following question:
1. What is the relationship of the Pilot and his responsibilities to the vessel and the Master?
a.) The Pilot is in command of the ship;
b.) The Captain and the Pilot share responsibility;
c.) The Pilot is an advisor to the Vessel and Master; or
d.) None of the above.
A MarEx reader weighed in on the matter below:
Joseph,
The mock question you pose at the end of your article is a very interesting one. When something goes wrong, the pilot backs away saying, “I’m only an advisor.” Truly he isn’t in charge of the ship but can he escape responsibility by saying he has no responsibility? Having investigated a number of collisions in which pilots were involved, I have adopted a unique and somewhat new view. I have backed away from the old position that the Master is responsible for everything. As you point out, the pilots are paid a great deal. They are required because of their specialized knowledge. They have traveled local waters over which they have a pilot’s license innumerable times. How can a master be held to that level of knowledge? If we are going to do that, then why have a pilot? In my opinion, they must share responsibility but not for all actions.
Let me give you a real life example: A tanker under Pilotage entered a small harbor to anchor awaiting a berth at a refinery. The entry turn into the harbor was wide and she struck bottom on the far side of the harbor. Initially, in my investigation, I felt the pilot was solely at fault because he knew the waters and should not have taken the ship where it grounded. However, the speed of the vessel was excessive entering the harbor where a right turn was required. While one can fault the pilot for this too, speed in a small harbor is well within the expertise of the master. He should have slowed the vessel down when the pilot didn’t. Both share the fault.
In short, I feel the pilot should be held responsible for unique conditions which apply to the situation, be it unusually strong currents, hidden underwater dangers particularly if not well charted, strong winds which come off the mountains such as in Juneau Alaska, etc. There are also navigational situations such as vessels passing in narrow rivers where banks suction, or other hydraulic effects can cause a vessel to veer. Sometimes there isn’t time for the master to intervene to prevent a collision or grounding under these circumstances. In situations like this, I would hold the pilot solely at fault. Unfortunately, some states use their own pilots to investigate casualties in which their fellow pilots were involved which often results in a white wash and the pilot is excused by the State Commission.
When a casualty occurs, the public perception aided by the media is that the ship was at fault whether or not there was a pilot directing the navigation. Legally that is true but who on the ship was responsible for the accident? We have to look at the cause to determine that. The pilot’s action must be held to a high standard. That’s what they are paid for.
The Coast Guard is without jurisdiction to take action against either the federally issued pilot license even when required by the state as a prerequisite for the state pilot license, or the state issued pilot license when a pilot is acting under his state license - See Soriano v. U. S. , 494 F. 2d 681 (9th Cir. 1974).
Kirk Greiner
www.maritimeconsultant.com
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: The writer expresses some interesting opinions on the subject. I’m guessing that he might get some argument on some aspects of his letter. Read on for one more letter, which references an editorial first put on line way back in October of 2008. The piece, entitled, “When Heel is Cargo as Opposed to when it is Not.” can be read by clicking HERE. Or, you can see what our reader had to say, below:
Hi Joe,
Just a quick note of appreciation.
Your article from Oct 30, 2008, "When 'Heel" IS cargo..." is terrific! A great example of technical writing, story telling, and legal interpretation.
I'm a physicist and know zip about oil & LNG loading and shipping. But your article gave just the right details to let me fill in the blanks. Better yet, I can imagine the characters in all their
late-night glory.
My dad had a simple test for believing a story: "Wuz you there, Charlie?" It's clear from your writing that "You wuz there" ... at 3AM over the ullage cap!
Nice!
Best wishes,
Cliff Stoll
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: This reader is clearly catching up on his back issues of the MarEx e-newsletter. That was a fun article, written in response to a recent court decision involving LNG “heel.” Thanks for reading and for writing.