Proposed Bill Mandates An Increase Of VTS Authority

Published: December 4th, 2007 by John | Comments |


Representative Nacy Pelosi and Admiral Craig Bone, USCG
(Photo by PA2 Prentice Danner, USCG)

This morning Senator Barbra Boxer and Representative Nacy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, announced a bill giving the U.S. Coast Guard broader authority to direct the actions of ship masters in navigating inland waters. The San Francisco Chronicle tells us;

The Coast Guard would gain new authority to order ships to reduce speed or shift course during emergencies or hazardous conditions under new legislation that California Sen. Barbara Boxer is introducing this week.

The bill could increase the responsibilities of the Coast Guard’s Vessel Traffic Service, which helps guide ships in U.S. harbors. The measure would give it powers akin to those of air traffic controllers, who issue step-by-step directions to airplane pilots.

Boxer, a Democrat, said she believes the spill could have been prevented if the Coast Guard had ordered the ship to slow down or change course.

“I absolutely think it would have” prevented the spill, Boxer said. “Let’s say the conditions were fierce - and they were - (the Vessel Traffic Service) would have declared an emergency, and they would have taken over in guiding this ship.Continue Reading….

Regular readers of this bog already know my personal thoughts on the subject. In last week’s editorial, I wrote;

The problem with maritime incidents is the fix rarely address the true cause and often creates problems that contribute to future incidents.

Current technology is simply not capable of delivering real time tracking. Also, final say remains the responsibility of a ship’s captain because he is the one who knows the ship’s capabilities, it’s crew and he is stationed on the bridge. He is also the last one to abandon if the ship finds danger… and he knows it.

If the Coast Guard wants final say then they need to be aboard the vessel and if that happens they will be hard pressed to fill the position with anyone more qualified than the competent and experienced San Francisco Pilots.

My comments resulted in 5 emails, 2 phone calls and a, well written, personal response by our friend Bob Couttie of the Maritime Accident Casebook. Bob wrote;

MAC’s own informal think-tank of veteran master mariners, who aren’t tanked up when they think, finds the proposal less objectionable, the authority of the master will remain in force much as it does now, in their view. Continue Reading…

This comment cause me to invest more than a few hours in nocturnal contemplation. Had I overestimated the potential outcome of the Coast Guard’s overtly defensive and seemingly irrational stance or has Bob’s geographic location far away from our shores disconnected him from the current state of American politics?

Provided the Chronicle has accurately conveyed Senator Boxer and Representative Pelosi’s intent, gCaptain reader ACI’s comment most accurately portrays the sentiment of our master mariner think tank;

Keep on putting more constrains to the shipping business with your new ridiculous American fear to everything and we will end up with no business at all. I know of captains that are refusing to sail to your country.

I really loved the times when the US was leading the world towards modernity, now it seems you are too scared.

The likely impetus for drafting legislation that puts us in the ironic position of being more likely to have a future incident is the demand for quick answers. For this reason I can not form a personal opinion as to maritime pilot John Cota’s culpability, at least not until the NTSB report is published. I can, however, give an industry insider’s opinion on the safety of current operations in the bay… so I wish to reiterate my personal feelings that both the San Fransisco Bar pilots and local VTS operators are among the most capable and well trained in the world. This, coupled with the fact US Coast Guard and State pilot officials have not asked for these changes, is worrisome.

Regardless of the headlines Pelosi’s bill does contain some element of potential good. The Chronicle writes;

Boxer’s bill would authorize $20 million to upgrade the technology used by the Vessel Traffic Service. The measure also would require all pilots to have their own navigational laptop computers. Cota has said he was unfamiliar with the ship’s electronic charts. Many pilots bring their own laptops on board to make sure they have reliable navigational charts to steer the ship.

The state pilot commission suspended Cota’s license on Friday. Cota’s attorney, John Meadows, has said his client was given “wrong information” by the ship’s captain, Mao Cai Sun.

History has proven that safe operations in the bay are possible without advanced electronics and I will not be surprised if the NTSB’s report places some degree of blame on the rapid integration of new technology on the bridge, a problem only made worse by already burdensome training requirements. This, however, does not mean we can ignore technological improvements.

For an intelligent discussion of the topic I’ll point you to audio from Captain Kelly Sweeney’s recent interview with NPR (CLICK HERE). Boiled down he states that we as mariners love AIS, ECDIS and other technology that keep us safe but improvements (most notably in implementation and redundancy) are needed.

But I’m still an optimist. When this discussion fades into memory we may find Pelosi’s large investment propelled interesting technological improvements while our worries were mitigated by the level headed watchmen of VTS.

*We’d love to head your thoughts! Click here and leave a comment (bottom of page) or contact us with your message.

__________________________________________________

John A. Konrad, Master Mariner

John Konrad is a USCG licensed Master Mariner of Unlimited Tonnage. Since graduating from SUNY Maritime College he has sailed 4 of the world’s oceans and reports from his ship via satellite. John lives in Morro Bay, CA with his wife Cindy and son Jack.

__________________________________________________

VTS Links;

Related Articles

Related Link: USCG Talk - Chat with other Guardians on our forum!

Related Link: Marine Incident Forum - Share photos, videos and marine incident reports online.

Categories: MARPOL Incidents · Master Mariner · Regulations · San Francisco · USCG

Tags: · , , , , , , , , , , ,





-

  • The issue of VTS as traffic control is a fairly frequent feature of proposed 'solutions', check out the responses following the Norwegian Dream/Ever Decent collision in 1999.

    I'd again bring up the Bridge Team Management/Bridge Resource Management issue, whih isn't ouched by the Pelosi-Boxer legislation as far as I can see. Such training must be mandatory for all pilots - in response to an earlier comment, there is lready a bridge team for the pilot already on the bridge but pilots don't make enough use of them, AND there should be similar training for VTS operators because when a vessel is in their area of responsibility, by extension they become part of that ship's bridge team.
  • Kurt, great comment, thanks!

    And... I just checked... we don't have a pilot port... at all.
  • If we as a country are going to even think about VTS working like air traffic control, we would need to pick a port and work out a test plan. It will take some real research to figure out the best way to implement such a thing, how far to take it, and if it would work at all. Only then can we make rules that are going to help protect ports and vessels and make the situation worse.

    Responding to the unmanned ship comment: Autonomous surface vehicles (ASV) are coming, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) are here. However, both are small and the operators knows that here is a reasonable chance that the vehicle might be destroyed one way or another. I don't think that unmanned cargo vessels will be here any time soon. Maritime operations is about managing the risk of economic activity.

    My take is that we need better tools for pilots and the crew (which is my research area, so I am biased). Pilots should be bringing their own charting system with them every time. Even if it is not always used, that is just the smart way to do your job. These things are getting pretty cheap and the cost of getting on a bridge with gear you have trouble with is too great.

    The first rule to make (instead of VTS tweaks) is to make a tested & working pilot plug and AIS a requirement for entering or getting underway in a port for larger vessels.

    That would be my current take on where we are.
  • captstash
    There is much to learn yet about this incident, so it is far too soon to jump to any conclusions. But it is worth considering that many shipping companies put undue pressure on their masters, who in turn pass the pressure along to pilots to get vessels moved even in questionable conditions.

    In hindsight, it would seem that after the radars failed anchoring the ship, rather than attempting to continue the transit would have been a better choice.

    The fact that the Cosco Busan was apparently preparing to go to sea and cross the Pacific without a working radar is disconcerting to say the least.

    Perhaps empowering / requiring harbor pilots to terminate transits where possible ( in this case for instance, the Busan could have been anchored in SF Anchorage #9) and notify the USCG when required equipment fails would be a far better and more efficacious solution. That would take the decision out of everyone's hands and improve safety.

    But that would require the use of common sense.
  • BB
    Fred, I like your last idea.... a bridge team for the pilot.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Search This Blog



Prefer Google? Click HERE


Subscribe Via Email

Daily Updates


Bi-Weekly Newsletter







Browse Categories




Authors



Recent Comments



Tags


Twitter License Plate