NV Ch. 7 — Navigating with a Pilot on Board

1. Introduction — the pilot joins the team

The relationship between the ship's team and an employed pilot is, primarily, professional. The master carries the responsibility for the safety of the ship; the pilot is engaged to assist with navigation in confined waters and to facilitate port approach, berthing and departure. So the pilot is not a replacement for the bridge team — he is a local expert taken into it.

Source: SWIFT, A. J.; BAILEY, T. J. Bridge Team Management: a practical guide. 2nd ed. London: The Nautical Institute, 2004. Chapter 7 — Navigating with a Pilot on Board (p. 55).

Edital: Anexo 2-B, Área III, item 1 (Swift & Bailey) → Chapter 7 — Navigating with a Pilot on Board · Anexo 2-A, Área III, item 12 (Navegação com o Prático a bordo).

1.1 The master's blind spot — and the OOW's

A real difficulty follows from this. In practice the master may find himself unhappy with the way the passage is being conducted, yet in no position even to query the pilot's actions — because he, the master, has no idea what should be happening. He cannot challenge what he does not understand.

The same exclusion can hit the OOW. Boarding a strange ship, pilots often feel unsupported; knowing the next part of the passage is entirely up to them, they simply get on with it and make the best of a bad job. The OOW, for his part, may feel shut out: he does not know where the ship is going, how it will get there, or what is expected of him — and so is very likely to lose interest.

1.2 The three conditions for genuine support

Mutual support between team and pilot can only be brought about by three things being true at once:

Conditions 1, 2 and 3 are not automatic. The chapter that follows is essentially a method for making each of them true — through planning, through a master/pilot information exchange, and through disciplined monitoring once the pilot has the con.

2. Planning — the plan does not stop at the boarding area

A well-planned passage does not stop at the pilot boarding area. The planning continues from sea to berth, or berth to sea, with the boarding of the pilot and the monitoring of his actions treated as part of the plan rather than as a gap in it.

This is the structural point of the chapter: because the bridge team has charted the pilotage water in advance, the pilot's con becomes something the team can follow and verify, not merely observe. Without it, the master is back in the blind spot of §1.1.

3. Master/Pilot Information Exchange (MPX)

The master may not know the area; the pilot may not know the peculiarities of the ship. These two problems can be minimised by establishing a routine master/pilot exchange — the MPX. When the pilot reaches the bridge, it is good practice for the master to make time for a brief discussion with him.

3.1 What each party brings to the exchange

The exchange runs both ways. The pilot describes his plan; the master describes his ship.

3.2 Acquainting the pilot with the bridge

Once the broad outlines are agreed, the pilot must be acquainted with the bridge itself. Practical agreement is needed on several points:

With all this done, the pilot is now better placed to take the con. But how fully any of it happens depends on several factors outside the team's control.

3.3 What limits the exchange — and what to do if it fails

4. Responsibility — the master stays in charge

Despite the presence of the pilot, the master is still responsible for the safety of the ship. The pilot is the local expert; he will conduct the ship to the best of his ability, advising the master as necessary and usually actually conducting the passage. This holds whether the pilotage is voluntary — the master has requested assistance — or compulsory, where the ship is required to take a local pilot within defined areas.

4.1 The master on the bridge — and delegation in long pilotage

Normally the master remains on the bridge throughout the pilotage, though this depends on the circumstances. In a long pilotage it would not be practicable for him to stay the whole time.

4.2 Why monitoring is the master's own protection

This returns to the blind spot of §1.1, now stated as a rule: the master is in a poor position to question the pilot about the ship's progress or situation at any moment unless he knows what should be happening at that time. Knowing the plan — and seeing it monitored against the ship's real progress — is precisely what gives the master the standing to intervene.

5. Monitoring — when the pilot has the con

The ship's progress needs to be monitored when the pilot has the con exactly as it would be under any other condition. The presence of a pilot does not relax the monitoring discipline of the earlier chapters — it makes it the team's main contribution.

So the whole chapter closes a loop. Planning (§2) charts the pilotage water; the MPX (§3) aligns pilot and ship; responsibility (§4) keeps the master accountable; and monitoring (§5) is the live mechanism that lets an accountable, well-informed master support — and when needed, challenge — the pilot who has the con.

6. Navigating with a pilot in one view

A pilot is the local expert taken into the bridge team, not a substitute for it. The team's task is to plan the pilotage water, exchange information both ways, keep the master accountable, and monitor continuously — so the master can support or query the pilot from a position of knowledge.