Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Maritime Studies

Crawford, Captain J F E --- "The Future Supply of Marine Pilots for Australia" [2003] MarStudies 20; (2003) 131 Maritime Studies 1

• The Future Supply of Marine Pilots for Australia
• Introduction
• The Present Situation
• Change of the Pilotage Environment and Recruitment
• Customers of Pilotage Services and their Needs
• Structural Essentials for Efficient Pilotage
• Existing and Potential Pools of Marine Skills for Marine Pilots
• 1. The National Fleet
• 2. Royal Australian Navy
• 3. External Pool
• 4. Direct Entry
• Selection
• Training of marine pilots – Who pays ?
• Conclusion
• REFERENCES

The Future Supply of Marine Pilots for Australia

Captain J F E Crawford^[1]

Introduction

This paper discusses questions of from where future marine pilots may be drawn and how an assured supply of commercially focused, efficient, and professionally stable pilots may be developed for Australian ports and pilotage service. Although aimed principally at harbour pilotage the problems of supply, selection, training, and career paths are equally applicable to harbour pilotage as to coastal and offshore pilotage.

The Present Situation

Australian pilots have in the past been drawn principally from the national merchant fleet which, by its diversity and the demands of its trades provided a primary source of officers for marine pilots, supplemented from culturally similar officers engaged in British shipping then trading to Australian ports. This arrangement was underpinned and assured by Australian Commonwealth and States’ statutes and regulations which, having been in place from the time of Federation, were focused on British practice and British Commonwealth trading preferences. However, traditional sources of suitable maritime officer candidates for marine pilotage are in decline at the same time as the ageing demographic of Australian pilots together with a slight expansion of numbers required is leading to a demand for an improved supply of technically competent pilots.

Compounding this, Australian shipping is currently in transition, despite its vessels being more efficient in unit terms than at any other time in its history. The causes of the transition are related broadly to an absence of a nationally coherent maritime transport policy, regulation with the sole and limited aim of ensuring the cheapest possible sea transport, and a discriminatory tax regime. As a result, to stay in business, the domestic shipping industry has been transforming itself from an Australian owned and flagged fleet to an international fleet managed from Australia in a manner little different that of other OECD nations. However, as a result, shore-based organisations are now facing a similar future shortage of marine skills for pilotage, harbourmasters, port services (such as vessel traffic services, towage, marine surveying, terminal management, port security services, and stevedoring), chartering and insurance, and maritime administration.

Figure 1 illustrates the trend and extent of ‘flagging out’ of the Australian shipping industry and, by implication, of Australian mariners.

Change of the Pilotage Environment and Recruitment

Many of the selection criteria for marine pilots have been and still are based on industry norms of half a century ago when exempt masters were common across a variety of vessels trading to many ports. Such masters and their personal and professional attributes were internationally recognizable and appropriate for harbour pilotage of vessels that were small by today’s standards, technically simple, and structurally robust (and, in ship handling terms, relatively forgiving). Although a practical and proven system in the past, ship-masters as shiphandlers are now few and their performance no longer subject to critical oversight by experienced harbourmasters and marine superintendents who served to ensure standards and to act as mentors. As an alternative, less senior and untested ships’ officers, impelled simply by a perception of an ‘easier’ life ashore in pilotage have not always subsequently developed the necessary skills, or greater interest, in delivering the more onerous aspects of pilotage.

Figure 1: Australian Flag Vessels compared to Offshore Flag Vessels managed from Australia showing trends in Australian Shipping Registration. Source: ASA [BIMCO, DoTaRs].

Historically, pilot service providers in Australia have always been in the comfortable position of being able to select officers trained by the domestic shipping industry without contribution to the costs of such training.

However, certification to a marine standard alone is not a guarantee of skills or of efficient pilotage. Analysis of some recent pilotage related incidents in Australia (and particularly in New Zealand) have also revealed significant systemic failings of port management support for pilotage. Typically, investigation reports are identifying an absence of standard operating procedures, inadequate training, blurred accountabilities, and flawed risk management as contributors. As a result, recent actions at law against ports [and pilot service providers, rather than individual pilots] suggest that laissez-faire port management is no longer tenable.

Because of this, ports, hitherto disinterested in the cost to shipowners of training mariners, or in the continuing supply of pilots now have a deeply vested interest in ensuring that marine pilots are well trained and motivated. The relatively recent development of Bridge Resource Management and Advanced Pilot Training courses and their wide acceptance by Australian pilots are a case in point. In any event, well-trained and well motivated pilots provide a future resource for many aspects of ports management.

Not only are ports and pilot service providers facing increasing liabilities (particularly in the wake of corporatisation and privatisation) through challenges by insurers, shipowners, and charterers, but also the cost outcomes of such challenges inevitably result in recovery from shipowners through marine and cargo insurances. The costs are then transferred as increased premiums and freight rates in quick succession. Shipowners thus have the ability to externalise their risks and costs in a manner which ports, commerce, and their communities, as price takers, do not.

Regrettably, little work has been done to quantify the invisible benefits of efficient pilotage as a risk management tool and hedge against claims by shipowners.

For shipowners, whose ships and their performance are shaped by international codes and audits and by national and local regulation, the absence of corresponding performance standards for ports and port services is a continuing frustration when pilotage related incidents occur. For such reasons, shipowners and shippers of cargoes alike often question both the need for compulsory pilotage and the cost of pilotage. Some ports share this disingenuous view. Compulsory pilotage serves the national and community interest by providing effective risk management and the safe and expeditious use of ports for shipowners, shippers, and the ports themselves. As a corollary to this, the cost of pilotage service is justified by the extent and excellence of benefits delivered.

For all these reasons marine pilots should be carefully selected, properly trained and retrained, and be able to deliver pilotage services professionally and expeditiously, and in a manner that consistently minimises risk.

Customers of Pilotage Services and their Needs

Traditionally, customers of ports and pilotage services have been seen to be shipowners. In contemporary maritime commerce this is no longer the case since cargoes are now almost invariably directed to and from ports by shippers of cargoes, whether as consolidators of containers or as charterers of bulk carriers, and not by shipowners. Because of this, influential offshore-based shipping and shipper lobbyists of government have little or no interest in finding solutions to the question of the future supply of mariners for pilotage or other maritime needs of Australia.

Notwithstanding the apparent primary role of shipowners and ports in being customers of marine pilotage the final and principal customer of pilotage services is the community and its environment, and the security of its commerce.

Structural Essentials for Efficient Pilotage

Pilotage, however performed, should be efficiently regulated to a coherent uniform national code which accommodates States rights, regional interests, and specific requirements for safety of navigation in ports, and which can be audited.

System essentials for a national system of pilotage marine service for Australia are:

• Overarching national policy on ports and pilotage, linked to international agencies such as IMO

• Clearly defined objectives for State and regional administration of pilotage

• Clearly defined objectives and performance standards for pilot service providers

• A defined hierarchy of accountabilities to provide audit standards at all levels

• Clearly and nationally cohesive regulation of navigation in the Great Barrier Reef, ports and port approaches

• Clear task objectives and performance standards for pilots

• Defined national standards of selection, training, and discipline of pilots

• A defined funding regime for future recruitment and training of pilots and development of pilot services

• A common and structured reporting and investigation model in all States (as in the aviation industry)

Such foundations are necessary for the setting of standards and optimised functioning of pilotage services, and may be usefully modelled on the Port Marine Safety Code of the United Kingdom, and the International Ship Management Code, each of which identifies tasks, roles, and accountabilities within defined organisational hierarchies.

Existing and Potential Pools of Marine Skills for Marine Pilots

The current and foreseeable manning situation of the national fleet suggests that overhaul of the current system of selecting and training pilots is not only necessary but urgent. Of the alternatives considered, direct entry supplemented by other and traditional means of entry all subject to rigorous development milestones, is favoured as possessing the necessary features of manageability and flexibility, and an assurance of predictable supply.

Not only is the direct entry method appropriate to Australia with its well-educated work force, a further pool of real potential exists in women, a resource that hitherto has been almost completely disregarded (or at least not sufficiently attracted) to the ports and shipping industry. There is good reason to believe that, in an open and ability-based selection process, women would be found to be well suited to the task of a marine pilot. (In passing, it should be noted that of contemporary Australian politicians, only two have demonstrated real insight into ports and marine matters, namely Alanah McTiernan in Western Australia and Candy Broad of Victoria).

Figure 2: Eligible Ships’ Officers Under Present Rules for Selection into Marine Pilotage Whole

National Fleet. Source: ASA [vessel and marine pilot data only, other inferences by author].

That alternative pools of skills should be sought, and selection and training processes urgently reviewed, is illustrated by Figure 2 which shows the declining pool of Australian officers available for all positions onshore in Australia requiring marine qualifications (or which would benefit from possessing marine qualifications) including marine pilots.

Of the whole pool of qualified senior officers available for marine pilotage, or desiring to become a marine pilot, only a few will possess the necessary aptitude for the task. The current situation is therefore already unsustainable without consideration of further decline.

In 2002, there were over 200 pilots serving as harbour pilots, between 50 and 60 coastal pilots, and about some 20 pilots and berthing masters serving specialist offshore mooring and off-take tanker operations. Of the harbour pilots, 34 were in the 30-40 age group, 68 in the 41-50 age group, 75 in the 51-60 age group, and 32 over 60 years of age. At that time, it was anticipated that 26 per cent would retire in the next two years, 26 per cent in 2-4 years, 25 per cent in 4-6 years, 17 per cent in 6-8 years, and the remainder (about 6 per cent) in 8-10 years although, because of the unpredictability of retirement choices, these assessments are approximate.

The following potential source pools can be considered:

1. The National Fleet

Regardless of the shortcomings of domestic shipping for recruitment because of its limited size and limited scope of skills, the national fleet is also a declining resource that will continue to decline in the foreseeable future. Not only is its intrinsic pool for recruitment shrinking, it is also being trawled by other employers of people with marine qualifications in government and shipping-related industries in Australia, as well as by offshore employers who are able to pay substantially higher wages because of their advantage in not also having to pay Australian taxes. Ports and pilotage services are thus in increasing competition for a declining resource of talent that may not serve their future purposes in any event, if based solely on basic certification standards.

2. Royal Australian Navy

The Royal Australian Navy, often suggested as a resource for marine pilots, is itself under pressure related to manning. Although largely untested as a potential pool for harbour pilots, the nature and specialisation of training of RAN officers together with a historic remoteness from commercial shipping and ports suggests that such officers would be unlikely to transfer to a form of employment that is markedly inferior in pay, leave, prospects for advancement, and without corresponding status. However, in devising any future means of entry to pilotage there should be nothing to prevent naval officers who meet direct entry training criteria from entering training at the appropriate level. It is a matter of fact that, despite the apparent hurdles, a number of pilots in Australia have their origins in the RAN. Also in such nations as Brazil, Chile and Denmark, capable marine pilots are drawn from specialised naval origins.

3. External Pool

A historic source for marine pilots for Australia has been the external pool. However, the skills, experience and vocation of externally sourced mariners have been extremely difficult to assess prior to employment and such officers often see pilotage in Australia as a position of some comfort and security that requires little or no need of further professional development. Appropriate selection criteria would alleviate or remove many current shortcomings of entry from the external pool, and also serve to prevent trainees from being merely discarded if failing to reach training milestones or employer performance standards. In the event of leaving a specialised development program, such trainees should be able to be usefully employed elsewhere in the Australian maritime industry. A key element is that all trainees would be streamed so as to ensure that the end product is of uniform quality and focus.

4. Direct Entry

Systems of direct entry to pilotage are currently being contemplated to allow individuals with either limited or no marine knowledge to develop a career path leading to marine pilotage. Structured training systems following such selection criteria are already used in the United States and have been used in the past in the United Kingdom (although the latter had a traditional approach to sea-going qualifications). A proposed concept for the selection and training of marine pilots from a range of sources is attached as Appendix A.

Selection

The selection, development, and qualification of trainees for a future Australian pilotage service of demonstrable quality should require as its essential basis that its processes are comparable and result in predictable and measurable outcomes. It is suggested therefore, that to broaden the pool from which future pilots may be drawn a direct entry (or apprenticeship system) be developed which does not inadvertently penalise those entering pilotage from other more traditional sources but which ensures that competent pilots are the outcome. Direct entry trainees who complete a prescribed course should also share a confidence in common with more mature entrants bearing some prior qualification that their certification and licensing as marine pilots has resulted in a worthwhile specialist qualification.

Trainees selected for direct entry to a pilotage training system should be prepared to accept the following conditions:

• selection criteria are appropriate to the specialisation of pilotage

• trainees must be attracted by long-term rewards

• trainees must commit to training and re-training

• direct entry trainees must develop and perform to known milestones

• exit process in the event of failure to attain prescribed milestones

• trainees must accept clear and objective disciplinary procedures

Appendix A ‘A development concept for future marine pilots for Australia’ describes the nature and detail of such a training scheme. The aim of the attached concept is to broaden the Australian pool from which talented Australians may be drawn for development as marine pilots, while at the same time preserving and extending the more traditional areas from which pilots may be drawn.

The concept possesses the following key features that should be adhered to:

• selection based on merit

• prior marine qualifications recognised

• prior marine qualifications accommodated by exemptions

• course requirements of trainees clearly defined

• personality and spatial awareness assessments pass/fail for all entrants

• mandatory milestones to be defined and adhered to

• mandatory personal and educational attributes assessed

• staged advancement dependent on successful completion of each milestone

• exit points, with appropriate qualification, available at all stages of development

• recognised specialist pilotage qualification at completion of course

• educators to have same development programs

• educators to be periodically audited (by AMSA and/or by State regulator).

Training of marine pilots – Who pays ?

No other question in the shipping industry is so capable of prompting immediate focus as that of ‘Who pays?’. In the case of future training of marine pilots, the conventional (and instantaneous) response of ‘not us’ is neither an option nor is it acceptable. A consequent question might be, ‘In whose interest is such a response?’. Currently, the costs of initial selection, development, and training of marine officers in Australia falls on domestic shipping (as the principal supplier of candidates for pilotage) to the point of their obtaining the required Master Class I qualification, although this varies according to the point at which individuals enter any particular service.

In addition, ships officers are now more mobile between employers than in the past so that ‘poaching’ within the shipping industry itself also creates competition for existing skills.

Not only are the costs of development of high quality officers for Australian pilotage being unevenly borne by Australian shipping, but also continued changes to the linkage with the Australian flag will result in many such costs no longer being absorbed in the same manner. For example, additional costs of Certificates of Recognition and costs associated with imported certificates, as under present rules, may create further costs on pilot service providers.

Possible sources of funding for direct entry and training for Australians and (in the event of shortcoming of the national supply) for external candidates for pilotage are:

• A navigation charge on all port users whether piloted or pilot exempt, on the premise that the officers of all vessels are eligible to enter pilotage services.

This charge however, would be difficult to quantify and to differentiate between pilotage services such as those provided to the offshore industry and to Queensland coastal pilotage, each of which should be considered a separate entity. Where levied for harbour pilotage, such charge should be transparently linked to the costs of providing navigation safety and pilotage services.

• A navigation levy on all cargo shipped has the attraction of being the most equitable basis of charging a levy since it is paid by the end user and principal beneficiary of pilotage services but would be a difficult charge to quantify across cargo type, and to collect.

• A charge associated with light dues and therefore directly associated with the safety of navigation. It also has the attraction of being relatively simple to adjust, collect, consolidate, and allocate.

Additional sources of funding for direct entry trainees might include:

• Additional and proportional funding by pilot service providers themselves according to the level of training demanded on entry to each provider’s service, as requirements will differ between pilotage districts.

• Costs of at-sea training, where necessary, should be defrayed by (wage) payments made by the shipping company carrier as a payment for work undertaken (such as watchkeeping, etc.)

• Self-funding by way of loans advanced to trainee pilots to be repaid by way of levies on future earnings, graduated according to the level of prior experience and qualification on entry to the pilot training scheme.

• Government funding to educational institutions, where applicable.

None of the funding methods described is exclusive, and a preferred outcome would be to use a variety of funding mechanisms. In the above, the costs of training are assumed to be only those associated with education, simulation, accommodation, transport, etc. The scope of the national training task, on the basis of current figures, is also assumed to require an average of thirty pilots per annum, not all of who will need to be fully funded.

Conclusion

Since a compelling event in Australia has yet to occur with which to galvanise political or public interest in pilotage, it is incumbent on the users and beneficiaries of pilotage services, and related industries, to find solutions to their

common interest in holding or lowering the real costs of pilotage.

• Ports, ports services, pilotage providers, pilots, shipowners, shippers of cargoes, freight-forwarders, and governments alike have a common interest in efficiently managing transfer costs at the point of transfer at the interface between ship and shore.

• Marine pilots are an essential part of port transfer processes and have an important influence on both direct and indirect costs by way of avoiding delays, minimising inadvertent damage, rationalising towage requirements, and in minimising those operational restrictions on ports which flow from flawed pilot selection and training.

• A future shortage of marine personnel to replace existing pilots can be turned to advantage by objectively creating a system that ensures future pilots are selected, trained, and focused on a consistent and efficient delivery of quality pilotage services.

• A graduated and structured trainee pilot system such as that outlined in the appendix to this paper increases the scope of the pool from which future pilots may be drawn, ensures predictable outcomes, and has the potential to be both workable and effective as a sound investment in promoting improved performance from pilots to benefit Australia’s ports, environment, communities and commerce.

REFERENCES

J Briggs, ‘AMPA Conference – Regulators Paper’, AMPA Workshop, Brisbane, 2003.

R Bourne, ‘Training future marine pilots’, AMPA Workshop, Brisbane, 2003.

C Haley, Personal communication with author, 2003.

H Hederstrom, ‘Pilot training for the 21st Century’, 2003.

J Hirst, ‘Pilotage – Current and future requirements, A port operator and Authority view’, AMPA Workshop, Brisbane, 2003.

V Justice, ‘Sourcing future pilots in Australia’, AMPA Workshop, Brisbane, 2003.

J McCoy, ‘The current state of pilotage and the need for review’, AMPA Workshop, Brisbane, 2003.

National Research Council, ‘Minding the helm, Marine navigation and piloting’, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994.

L Payne, ‘Pilotage, current and future requirements, a shipowners view’, AMPA Workshop, Brisbane, 2003.

S Pelecanos, ‘The Future Marine Pilot’, Keynote Address, Loodswezen Conference 2000, Ijmuiden, Netherlands, 2000.

S Pelecanos, ‘Expanding the marine pilotage recruitment pool’, Presentation, AMPA Workshop, Brisbane, 2003.

A Radjurai, ‘The liability of marine pilots’, AMPA Workshop, Sydney, 2001.

Thompson Clark Shipping, ‘Maritime skills availability Study’, Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2002

^[1] Captain Crawford, from the Australian Marine Pilots Association, has extensive experience in shipping and ports as a port manager, harbour master, and a pilot, having conducted over 9,700 pilotages in six ports in New Zealand and Australia. This paper was presented at the AUSMARINE EAST Conference in Brisbane, 28-30 October 2003, and is published with permission of Baird Publications.