Pilot Error and the Master's Duty to Step In

After an allision or grounding under pilotage, someone will eventually ask the master a hard question under oath. "You saw the ship was heading for trouble. Why didn't you do something?"

Sometimes the honest answer is that there was nothing to see until it was too late. Sometimes the honest answer is that he trusted the pilot because that is what masters are trained to do. Telling those two apart is one of the most delicate parts of a pilotage case.

The tension built into the job

A master who takes on a pilot is relying on local knowledge he does not have. Second-guessing every order would defeat the purpose and could make things more dangerous. At the same time, the master keeps command and the responsibility that comes with it. If the pilot is putting the ship in danger, the master is expected to act.

Having been on both sides of that exchange, I can say neither role is comfortable when the margin gets thin.

What should make a master speak up

The warning signs are usually visible on the bridge before anything happens:

• The ship is off the planned track and not coming back
• Speed is higher than the plan or the conditions call for
• The ship is not answering the helm the way the pilot expects, and he has not adjusted
• A turn is coming and no rudder has been ordered
• Orders to the helm or tugs do not make sense, or appear to be misheard
• The pilot seems distracted, unwell, or exhausted
• Radio traffic suggests a conflict the pilot has not acknowledged

None of these automatically means the master should take over. Each one means somebody on the bridge should say something.

Intervention is a ladder, not a switch

In practice, stepping in usually happens in stages. A question first: "Pilot, we're setting toward the green side." Then a stronger statement of concern. Then a recommendation. Only when those fail, or when there is no time, does the master relieve the pilot and give orders himself.

A well-run bridge team does this as a matter of routine. Officers cross-check positions, call out speed and rate of turn, and say what they see. On a bridge where junior officers do not feel free to speak, or where the master and pilot never agreed on a plan in the first place, the ladder never gets climbed.

How it is judged afterward

The question for an expert is what a prudent master would have done with what this master knew or should have known, minute by minute. That is where the evidence matters:

• VDR audio often captures the exchange, or the silence
• AIS and ECDIS tracks show when the ship left safe water
• The master and pilot exchange shows whether the plan was shared
• Testimony from the bridge team shows who noticed what, and when

Hindsight is the enemy of fairness here. Knowing how it ended makes every warning look obvious. A sound analysis rebuilds the picture as it looked from the bridge at each moment, not as it looks from the courtroom.

The legal layer

How liability is divided between the pilot, the vessel, and its owner depends on legal questions, including whether pilotage was compulsory. Counsel handles that. The operational question underneath stays the same: was the ship handled the way a competent pilot and a prudent master, working together, would have handled it?

About the author

Captain Mitchell S. Stoller is a Master Mariner Unlimited, former Exxon tanker master, and former Los Angeles Harbor pilot. About Captain Stoller