# Mersey pilot calls police to drunk master



## Pat Kennedy

Did the pilot do the right thing when he rang the police after a confrontation with the captain of a tanker berthed in QEII Dock at Eastham? The pilot formed the opinion that the captain was drunk, and had him arrested.
Here is the news item in today's Liverpool Echo.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/ships-captain-eastham-docks-found-9694237


----------



## Dartmouth Mariner

The pilot was absolutely right to inform the authorities if the master of the vessel was drunk. The pilot has an obligation to report defects which he may find aboard a vessel and that includes the ability of the crew to do the job. 
In days gone by, as pilots we often ignored the state of the master's sobriety provided he didn't interfere and that someone else capable was on the bridge. There was no law or standards set then to determine whether someone was incapable because of alcohol. There are standards now, and it should be noted they would also apply to a pilot.


----------



## sidsal

Years ago (40's 50's) in tankers there were many drinks. I sailed as2nd mate in ESso on a tanker where the master ,mate (demoted master) and chief engineer were permanently drunk. I walked off the ship in Le Havre as I was concerned for my ticket. It was at the time where Esso were transferring all. Their US flagged ships into the Panamanian flag and putting European crews on them. The compny were desperate to man their fleet and turned a blind eye on the problem. I could write a book !


----------



## trotterdotpom

Just curious, why wasn't he allowed to use a mobile phone on the bridge?

John T


----------



## Mariner44

trotterdotpom said:


> Just curious, why wasn't he allowed to use a mobile phone on the bridge?
> 
> John T


Maybe on the bridge wing? A bit like using a mobile phone near the petrol pumps at a filling station ashore - prohibited.


----------



## trotterdotpom

I thought that petrol pump/mobile phone thing had been shown to be a load of rubbish although, being incapable of multi-skilling I don't do it myself.

As for the bridge wing theory, walkie talkies OK but mobile phones not OK?

John T


----------



## Varley

I have never seen a conventional mobile that is of an 'approved safe type' ie Ex ib. A prerequisite of it being allowed on open tanker deck.

However it is possibly more important to know if mobile or approved type equipment will bring about some unintended control system hiatus which might endanger the vessel other than by igniting her cargo. Use of shore-side technology was responsible for the loss of propulsion of a cross channel ferry by transmitting (what may have been an automatic housekeeping exchange) and activating an oil mist detector (not fitted to inessential machinery!). No standard exists for this. It is up to the managers to determine empirically if there is a potential problem


----------



## pilot

May have been more to avoid his conversation being overheard by the Master and minimise confrontation with the drunk, rather than a safety issue. 
I've had the misfortune to board an inward bounder Greek Panamax with a drunken master onboard and had to conduct a 23' passage with this drunk stumbling round the bridge. VTS were advised and police boarded as we came alongside,he was taken ashore before we'd completed the mooring. The master was in such a state I felt it unsafe to disembark on boarding at the Pilot Station. The Master was prosecuted and convicted for his early payoff party.


----------



## trotterdotpom

I got the impression it was the Old Man using the mobile. Can't even have a laugh these days.

John T


----------



## Barrie Youde

Yes. Section 21 of the Pilotage Act1987 imposes criminal liability on any pilot who might fail to take any action necessary to preserve the safety of the ship and persons on board.

Arguably it might depend upon quite how drunk was the shipmaster, but this appears to have been a fairly bad case. The case of UNION MOON at Belfast not long ago revised much thinking on this age old subject.


----------



## Engine Serang

Ah pilots, dontcha just lovem. Fine upstanding gentlemen with a professional ethos which ensures they take responsibility for all their actions. I have no doubt someone will post a story about pilots with slopey shoulders but I won't believe them.


----------



## Barrie Youde

The provision set out in Section 21 of the 1987 Act is not new. It repeats a similar provision in the Pilotage Act of 1913.

The developments today reflect technology, as much beloved by engineers, catching up with law, whether the rest of us like it or not.


----------



## Barrie Youde

11

Engine Serang,

Your sarcasm reminds me of the time of the introduction of the breathalyser and the outrage expressed by habitual drinkers including me.

In light of the large increase in road traffic and the vast increase in technology in the operation of any ship today, it simply doesn,t wash.

A pilot is first and foremost a public servant. He forgets that at his own peril, and yours, too..


----------



## Varley

With tongue only partially in cheek I have always questioned the coupling of drunk with outcome. "Carrying out the Company's business due to the influence of alcohol" was, if memory serves, the wording of the Denholm offence. I can just imagine the board turning down new business because it had been concluded over a few too many gins! I remonstrated that it should be "Failing to carry out the Company's business due to the influence of alcohol".

I postulate that occasionally a ship might be safer if certain of her staff were anaesthetised for the lesser evil.


----------



## jmcg

As for the bridge wing theory, walkie talkies OK but mobile phones not OK?

John T[/QUOTE]


If they are ATEX approved no issues - intrinsically safe. If not intrinsically safe there is always the potential for flash over.

Hope this helps.

BW

J (Gleam)(Gleam)


----------



## Mad Landsman

jmcg said:


> As for the bridge wing theory, walkie talkies OK but mobile phones not OK?
> 
> John T



If they are ATEX approved no issues - intrinsically safe. If not intrinsically safe there is always the potential for flash over.

Hope this helps.

BW

J (Gleam)(Gleam)[/QUOTE]

Quite so - I used to be a regular visitor to parts of the Wytch Farm field in Dorset.
Each time I entered a compound I was required to declare ANY radio, phone, torch etc were 'Intrinsically safe' or else leave it at the gate. No arguments, no problem.


----------



## borderreiver

Varley said:


> I have never seen a conventional mobile that is of an 'approved safe type' ie Ex ib. A prerequisite of it being allowed on open tanker deck.
> 
> However it is possibly more important to know if mobile or approved type equipment will bring about some unintended control system hiatus which might endanger the vessel other than by igniting her cargo. Use of shore-side technology was responsible for the loss of propulsion of a cross channel ferry by transmitting (what may have been an automatic housekeeping exchange) and activating an oil mist detector (not fitted to inessential machinery!). No standard exists for this. It is up to the managers to determine empirically if there is a potential problem


Esso have them on the tanker jetty's.


----------



## M29

Mad Landsman said:


> If they are ATEX approved no issues - intrinsically safe. If not intrinsically safe there is always the potential for flash over.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> BW
> 
> J (Gleam)(Gleam)


Quite so - I used to be a regular visitor to parts of the Wytch Farm field in Dorset.
Each time I entered a compound I was required to declare ANY radio, phone, torch etc were 'Intrinsically safe' or else leave it at the gate. No arguments, no problem.[/QUOTE]

Hi
Yes, the walkie talkies we had on gas ships were intrinsically safe and had to be brought back to their charging station which was located in the Radio Room. The battery compartments were locked as removal of the battery may cause a spark. I seem to remember they cost a good deal of money at the time.

Alan


----------



## waitimg for orders

You can get almost anything rated for Zone II these days but boy do they cost. Very small market and certification costs a fortune for the manufacturers.


----------



## loco

If a Master is navigating his ship under the influence of alcohol or drugs, within Harbour limits, this may well contravene that Harbour's Act of Parliament or general directions, bylaws, etc; the Pilot, being the principal point of contact between the ship and harbour authority, would be expected to report to the authority if he did suspect that the Master was under the influence. I have had at least three reports from pilots who were concerned with the Master's sobriety on the ship they were piloting, or about to pilot, whilst working in VTS.
Martyn


----------



## Wallace Slough

I recall an incident wherein I'd docked an afromax tanker at the Chevron terminal in Richmond. I knew the master well and he appeared to be sober and competent at the time. Shortly after I'd left the vessel and the ship's agent boarded he collapsed in his office with the delirium tremors. The EMT's were called and the master was removed from the ship and transported by ambulance to the hospital where he subsequently recovered. He was immediately terminated by the ship's owners.
Subsequent to this, I came under severe questioning as to why I hadn't made a report and I told everyone that there was no indication that he'd been intoxicated to me. I was told that he'd been drinking heavily prior to arrival in the USA and had come off the booze shortly prior to arrival with the consequent reaction. It was a shame as he was a very competent and able person that had let the booze get the better of him.
When I was sailing offshore on foreign going ships and when I initially started piloting it was common to drink to excess aboard ships. This changed dramatically as a result of the Exxon Valdez incident. The change has been a good thing for the industry.


----------



## BOB.WHITTAKER

*Alcohol*

I went from Deepsea to Offshore in 1976 where it was obviously
" Dry ". This in my opinion was the only way to run the job and in
many ways would be to advantage if it was applied in other areas 
as well. Not only did you know what state the next man would be
in if needed you knew you could be relied on as well.

Rationing, two cans a day or similar, does not work. If there is 
drink available it is a dead cert it will be abused at some point, this 
from the top down in all departments. It might only be one incident !

I recently posted a comment under the Captain's Gun. More in line
with this thread I witnessed the same person in that comment 
on the same ship on a transit of the Manchester Ship Canal hanging 
over the wing of the bridge almost unable to speak. He was known 
for it and it was almost expected of him ! This was back in the mid 
sixties and what his final career outcome was I do not know.

Not so much " Master under God " more " Master under the influence".


----------



## Leratty

David p14 last para, love it shall be suffering intermittent chuckling rest of day.


----------

