How remote is remote pilotage?

How Remote is Remote Pilotage?

Mike Hadley

ADVNAV UK

Malek Pourzanjani

World Maritime University

Abstract“Today, the idea of allowing aircraft pilots to operate as they see fit, without any controlfrom the land, is unthinkable. Will the same things apply to ships in twenty to thirtyyears’ time?” 1

Current maritime pilotage regimes are clearly seen in some quarters as too restrictiveand old fashioned. Change is “in the air” and VTS, pilotage, and the relationship betweenthem cannot be immune to it. Subject to the attainment of the appropriate standards byboth ships and their crews there is no practical reason why more flexible Vessel TrafficManagement cannot be introduced. The required technology is largely available and,with the introduction of AIS, the required dynamic data can be available. Technicalproblems foreseen are believed capable of solution. The more significant obstacles to im-plementation are, therefore, largely political, commercial, organisational, and cultural.These issues are discussed in this paper taking into account the viewpoints of majorstakeholders.

Key words: pilotage, remote pilotage, enhanced navigation assistance, VTS, VTMIS

1 IntroductionThe term remote pilotage (or shore based pilotage or shore based tactical advice2) isone which can intrigue or exasperate, depending on the point of view. The reactioncan vary not only with one’s position in the maritime community but can also havea geographic component, which makes the differing ways in which pilotage is ap-proached nationally a key factor in any discussion. This always assumes that therewill be a discussion, something that cannot be taken for granted. Insert into any ex-change comparisons with how the aviation industry approaches control of aircraftand the desirability of implementing aspects of this into vessel traffic control, as theSecretary-General of IMO has done on more than one occasion, and the effect can

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 2003, Vol. 2, No.2, 181–197

1 O’Neil, W.: World Maritime Day 1999. In: IMO News, 1999, Issue 3, p. 28.2 European Union (EU), Transport Research EURET Maritime Transport: Tools to access VTS and

to increase the efficiency of VTS (TAIE). Brussels: DG Transport, European Commission (EC),1996.

182 Hadley and Pourzanjani

be combustible. Antipathy to the suggestion that pilotage can be exercised from any-where other than onboard a vessel can be marked, being based either on a supposedcomplete impracticality of execution and/or an assertion that the words remote andpilotage are a contradiction in terms. In fact one national review of pilotage statedthat remote pilotage was just that, an oxymoron.3 To somewhat even the balance ofviewpoints it is demonstrable that at least something approaching remote pilotagehas been exercised in a number of countries, is in operation today and that there areplans for its further implementation, to the extent that at least one national pilotageorganisation (Loodswezen, Rotterdam) has its own remote pilotage project.

However, shore based pilotage is not a new concept, it was being considered for usein all weathers almost 40 years ago, for largely financial reasons, and has been prac-tised in at least two forms for over 10 years. The basis for these activities has beenradar, which is technically constrained. In a fast changing world Vessel Traffic Ser-vices (VTS), pilotage, and the relationship between them cannot expect to be un-affected. Change is now technically possible and it is evident that changes in vesseltraffic management are beginning to be considered and that in some cases, e.g.Rotterdam, change is already being implemented. Despite the progress being madein the Netherlands, general implementation is likely to be slow, because there is op-position, as a commercial benefit has yet to be established, the appropriate legisla-tive framework is not yet in place, and the issue of liability is unresolved.

There is no escaping the fact that the cost of pilotage and the attempt to establishways of minimising it have been factors in promoting thoughts about remote pilotage.This has, in turn, called into question current rules for mandating pilotage, which ofcourse vary from port to port. Include in this mix an alternative strand of thinkingabout introducing competition in pilotage and it can often prove impossible to holda dispassionate debate on the subject.

On the evidence, so far, it seems that a combination of pilots facing the reality of thecommercial and regulatory pressure for change and good man management tech-niques by competent authorities can induce a positive response to discussions aboutnew working practices4; the opposite is also true.

As is frequently the case, elsewhere the positions taken by those prepared to debatethis topic are coloured by their background, their view and understanding of severalinter-related and complex issues and the legal framework within which the activitiesinvolved take place. Another factor is just what the person understands by the term“remote pilotage’. The inherent conservatism of an industry with such a long historyis also a consideration. If for no other reason than this it would indicate that a gradualistapproach to promoting the concept of remote pilotage is the one most likely to succeed.

3 Department for Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR): Review of the Pilotage Act 1987London: The Stationery Office, 1998.

4 Ibid., pp. 28, 43

183How Remote is Remote Pilotage?

Examined dispassionately, the terminology used is essentially immaterial. What ismeant is the provision of external assistance to a vessel that enables or allows it to dosomething that under other circumstances was previously only possible or allowedwith a pilot embarked. This paper aims to indicate the origins of the concept of remotepilotage, the main issues, constraints and consequences of implementation and sketchout what may lie ahead.

2 The Origins of Remote PilotageEver since pilotage was established there must have been occasions when pilots havenot been able to embark safely at their normal boarding station. Short of mastersfeeling able to proceed in shore to where embarkation was practicable there was noanswer to problems caused by poor weather conditions. This, of course, interruptedtrade which gave the ports and in some cases national maritime authorities ahealthy interest in seeking a solution that would improve traffic flow in such condi-tions. However, no practical assistance was possible from ashore until the advent ofa combination of radio and radar. Although it is often forgotten that the first portradar system was implemented in Liverpool in 1947 to enhance trade and not speci-fically to promote ship safety, becoming what is now known as VTS. This technologytook a little time to develop to a point where it could be contemplated for use in re-mote pilotage. However, an early account of its exploitation in France was recordedin 1963.5 Interest in the subject has certainly been a strand of research promoted bythe European Commission since at least COST301 (1987 – 1991) and remains sotoday. A report entitled EU Maritime Pilotage Study6 listed instances of shore basedpilotage in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Nether-lands, Portugal and Spain and research into the subject7 did indicate that such practiseswere mainly limited to Europe and its developments would probably flow fromEurope and possibly Japan.

Currently the main exploitation of what might be called remote pilotage has been inGermany and The Netherlands; the Rotterdam pilots are currently running theirown remote pilotage project. However, looking at what has happened in these twocountries immediately brings one back to the problem of definition. In Germany, inpoor weather, pilots would use VTS facilities to talk vessels into waters consideredsheltered enough for pilots to embark, they would also use a radar reference systemto assist their colleague, now on board, to navigate the major river approaches toports such as Hamburg. One of the authors can vouch for the efficacy of this system,after using it for both entry and exit of the Elbe in both thick fog and ice, whilstNavigator of an aircraft carrier. In The Netherlands, in poor weather, specifically inRotterdam, vessels were talked in to the harbour entrance so that a pilot could

5 Oudet, L.: Shore-based Pilotage. In: The Journal of Navigation. Vol.16 (1963), pp. 325–331.6 Ramboll, Hanneman & Hojlund AS: EU Maritime Pilotage Study. Brussels: DG Transport, EC,

1995, Section 3.4.7 Hadley, M.: Remote Pilotage & Enhanced Navigation Assistance. PhD thesis. Southampton Insti-

tute/Nottingham Trent University, UK, 2000, Section 2.12.2


embark but no assistance was given beyond this point. In Southampton, pilots askfor and receive assistance based on a radar reference line and other radar derived datain all weather conditions.

The view that current pilotage rules are too restrictive is not restricted to the Nether-lands but, although “remote pilotage” is recognised as a possible solution in somequarters, there is a general lack of knowledge of the subject in the industry. Thisindicates the need for a clear exposition of the issues surrounding the subject, whichwould help achieve a common understanding of what is involved. The variety ofindividual rules/guidelines/checklists involved in implementing aspects of remotepilotage/navigation assistance in various localities suggests the need for a generic setof indicators, by which a vessel’s qualification to use such a new service can be as-sessed.

3 DefinitionsAlthough referring to shore based pilotage, the International Maritime Pilots Asso-ciation (IMPA) and the European Maritime Pilots Association (EMPA) have producedthe definition “an act of pilotage carried out in a designated area by a pilot licensed forthat area from a position other than on board the vessel concerned, to conduct the safenavigation of that vessel”.8 This definition does not preclude the presence of a piloton board but does allow for him not to be. IMPA and EMPA, however, regard shorebased pilotage “as an extension of the pilot’s task to improve the safety and efficiency ofmaritime traffic but its limitations should be understood. It cannot be a substitute forpilotage performed by a pilot on board”.9 This is an understandable point of view butrather militates against development.

Another definition, in some respects more in keeping with the perception of thosepilots spoken to, comes from the USA. It is: “Pilot provision of manoeuvring advice ororders from a site external to the vessel being provided with pilotage services”.10

Trying to resolve the ambiguities in terminology, the different understandings ofpractitioners and would be practitioners, despite the IMPA/EMPA definition, andalso trying to embrace current Vessel Traffic Services thinking gave rise to the viewthat it would be helpful to define two activities, remote pilotage and enhanced navi-gation assistance:

8 Koopmans, M.: Piloting VTS through uncharted waters. Proceedings of VTS2000. Singapore:Maritime Port Authority of Singapore & International Association of Lighthouse Authorities(IALA), 2000, (Session 5 – Paper 3).

9 Firnhaber, K.: A pilot’s view on shore based pilotage. Proceedings of 6th European Harbour MastersAssociation Congress. Reykjavik: European Harbour Masters’ Association, 1996, (2).

10 National Research Council: Minding the Helm: Marine Navigation and Piloting. Washington:National Academy Press, 1995, p. 29.


3.1 Remote PilotageThe provision of assistance from a VTS centre, by a qualified and suitably trainedpilot, to a non piloted vessel so that it can navigate safely in confined waters upto/from the point at which a docking pilot may be required to embark/disembark.This definition closely matches that of shore based tactical advice, used in the EUresearch project TAIE.11

3.2 Enhanced Navigation AssistanceThe provision of assistance from a VTS centre, by a suitably trained Vessel TrafficServices Operator (VTSO), to a non piloted vessel so that it can navigate safely inconfined waters up to/from the point at which a docking pilot may be required toembark/disembark.

4 AssumptionsIn considering more flexible vessel traffic management some assumptions need tobe made. Those made in the work covered by this article are that any new service will:

• Be provided to vessels without a pilot or Pilotage Exemption Certificate (PEC)holder.

• Operate at an agreed level of safety, decided by the authority responsible for provi-sion.

• Not apply to certain categories of ships.

• Not apply to any vessel on its first visit to a port.

• Go beyond giving navigation assistance to a ship’s master, as currently defined bythe IMO12, i.e. instructions may be given and a pilot will not be embarked.

• Given the present difficulties surrounding automated berthing and the control oftugs, it may at some stage require a docking pilot to be embarked.

Careful reading of the IMO guidance13 shows that navigation assistance can be eithercontributory or participatory. The participatory aspect is nowhere as clearly definedas the contributory and aspect and enhanced navigation assistance is built on whatis perceived as what constitutes participatory assistance. With the two new servicesof remote pilotage and enhanced navigation assistance being considered, both aimedat assisting different categories of vessels to achieve the same end, the difference isobtained by the provider of the service; remote pilotage by a pilot and enhancednavigation assistance by a VTS operator.

5 ChallengesThe natural conservatism of much of the maritime industry and a degree of self interestapart there are a number of challenges that need to be faced when implementing either

11 Op. Cit. 2, p. 2412 IMO Resolution A.857(20): Guidelines for Vessel Traffic Services. 1997.13 Ibid.


remote pilotage or enhanced navigation assistance. These can be broadly defined astechnological and non-technological and the former are considerably easier to ad-dress.

5.1 TechnologyTaking the view that technology is required to provide information on board thatwill enable the bridge team to operate effectively without a pilot on board and, at thesame time, provide information at a VTS centre that will allow accurate monitoringand forecasting of a vessel’s movements and its likely interactions with other vesselsand navigational hazards then the required technology is now largely available.

The debate about fusing radar and ground-based systems continues but the core ofwhat is required is Electronic Chart Display Information System (ECDIS) and accu-rate positioning. ECDIS is now in service and the key issue with this technologyconcerns the availability of the relevant chart data and the question of how non-chart symbols are to be displayed. Accurate positioning is now almost taken forgranted, based on differential and other forms of the Global Positioning System(GPS), although there are concerns about availability and integrity. The UniversalAutomatic Identification System (AIS) will shortly provide for the identification ofthe majority of SOLAS vessels and the combined pressures of regulation, commerceand in some cases self interest may well see that coverage extended into the remainingSOLAS and many non SOLAS vessels. The ability to transfer the increasing amountsof data now available to a modern VTS, including its traffic image, to shipping in itsarea have been demonstrated in various projects, as has the ability for shipboard sys-tems to send data electronically back to a VTS. Taken together and with caveats aboutreliability, availability and redundancy the technological basis for remote pilotage nowexists.

5.2 Non-technical IssuesThe non-technical issues involved with implementing remote pilotage or enhancednavigation assistance are both numerous and far less amenable to solution. They rangefrom size and type of vessel, equipment fitted, crew capability and training, throughlanguage and fatigue to the legislative framework and liability. There is also the nat-ural conservatism of mariners and, for understandable reasons, pilots can opposethis topic quite forcibly. Perhaps above all there is a need to establish a commercialbenefit.

5.2.1 Size and Type of VesselAlthough certain vessels will be self-selecting for continuing to need the services ofone or more pilots, either through their size in comparison to the navigable channelsor the nature of their cargo, a case can be made for making current rules more flexible.One reason for implementing such flexibility would be the availability of a remotepilotage or enhanced navigation assistance service. No hard and fast rules can be es-tablished, based on the generally used criteria of length and draught, as each port isdifferent. Each port must come to its own conclusions, based on a risk assessment.


Perhaps most challenging of all will be assessment of the risk of a vessel participatingin remote pilotage, past the point of no return, and then failing to follow the adviceor directions being given.

5.2.2 Equipment Fit and StateIt is accepted that substandard ships exist. The reason for their being consideredsubstandard may be due to their material state, equipment fit, the quality and com-petence of their crew or some combination of all three. In the case of remote pilotage/enhanced navigation assistance, ports will need to judge each vessel on a case by casebasis but it will be helpful to have at least a minimum equipment fit as a startingpoint for any judgement. This may vary from port to port and an individual, riskbased judgement will need to be made. An absolute basic requirement will be workingcommunications, a satisfactory machinery maintenance state and a properly func-tioning radar. Building on this, some ports may require a precise positioning systemlinked to ECDIS and/or the type of equipment that is now becoming available thatallow VTS support direct to the bridge. This may be “portable” or fixed, dependingon whether it is capable of being used in more than one port.

Whatever the decision about the required equipment fit the question of verificationwill also need to be addressed. This might be covered by the completion of a pre-entry/exit checklist by the master but the accuracy of responses also needs to be fac-tored in. This seems to indicate multiple port visits, probably with a pilot embarked,will be required so that the trustworthiness of completed checklists can be estab-lished. There is also a link here to individual masters, with whom a relationship hasbeen established.

5.2.3 Crew Capability and TrainingJust as with considerations of equipment it will be helpful for ports to take a view onthe competence of the “on watch” bridge team. However, it seems clear that no vesselwill be allowed to participate in remote pilotage or enhanced navigation assistanceon its first visit and there may well be a minimum number of visits required before avessel qualifies and a port considers that it has sufficient data on which to base ajudgement. It would also seem prudent to link participation in any new service tonamed people being on board, as for the use of a PEC, and a declaration that a pre-defined check list is positively complete before participation begins. Although nottackling the underlying causes of substandard ships, there is, therefore, a route toreaching vessels suitable to participate. However, it is clear that an essential consid-eration in deciding whether a remote service should be provided is the training ofboth parties involved; pilot/VTS operator and master. Those providing the servicemust know what they can and cannot say, use standardised phrases and in so far asthe circumstances permit, be consistent in the way in which their information isdelivered. They must also be thoroughly grounded in handling emergency situa-tions. Those receiving the information must be capable of understanding what itmeans and how to apply it. They too need to use standardised phraseology and beaware of any likely emergency responses that will be required of them.


5.2.4 LanguageThe need for a common language, unambiguously understood by both sides in-volved, must be a given and presents one of the greatest stumbling blocks to imple-mentation. The time to discover that a master has a different understanding to theremote pilot is not in mid-manoeuvre and past the point of no return. Thus, a vesselmay in all other respects be qualified for consideration as a participant in remotepilotage/enhanced navigation assistance but fail because of a lack of language skills.Being able to assess a master’s ability in this area is a principal reason why multiplevisits to a port, rather than just one, is likely to be required by a port authority beforeapproval is given. However, this pre-supposes that there is agreement on the languageto be used, which may be an important consideration for the mariner expecting touse any new service in more than one port.

The natural inclination would be to standardise on English, as the IMO approved“language of the sea”. However, the two strongest proponents of remote pilotage(Germany and the Netherlands) have, so far, taken opposite views. In Germany thelanguage of choice is German, with a possibility of English being offered, whereas inthe Netherlands, English is used, with the possibility of Dutch being offered. Neitherchoice is wrong and, from a commercial point of view, it is logical that a port shouldbe able to choose whichever language(s) best meets its needs and those of its cus-tomers. However, it was interesting to note in Germany that with an increasing num-ber of mariners using its ports speaking neither German or English the questionbecame academic and an apparently increasing percentage of vessels are excludingthemselves from potential participation in remote pilotage. The introduction andapproval (by all parties) of the IMO’s Standard Marine Communications Phrases(SMCP) may have resolved this issue.

5.2.5 FatigueHaving the required equipment, properly functioning machinery and competentand properly trained crew will count for little if the crew, especially the master, issuffering from fatigue. A knowledge of a vessel’s programme or usual mode of opera-tion and its manning level will be of assistance, again indicating a need for multipleport visits before remote pilotage/enhanced navigation assistance is permitted, butthe only people who know the particular circumstances are on board. A questionalong the lines of “being physically capable to carry out the intended entry/exit”might be considered for the checklist but any response must be subjective and is atleast susceptible to commercial pressure. Consideration of this aspect must be fullycovered in any risk assessment.

5.2.6 Legislative FrameworkUnsurprisingly, as it is a new way of operating, existing international and nationallegislative frameworks do not necessarily cater for remote pilotage; although under theguise of participatory navigational assistance it might be possible to infer some cover-age for enhanced navigation assistance. Making adequate provision is not impossible,


as can be seen from steps already taken in Germany and the Netherlands14 but thereneeds to be the political will to make the necessary changes and this will need stimu-lating by pressure from the maritime industry.

With regard to procedural development and as an overall comment about technology,it has been observed that:

“New technology is being developed faster than are the technical and performancestandards needed to guide and facilitate its use”.15

It is certainly developing faster than the decision making process in various interna-tional fora.16 This impacts on one aspect of legislation. Another is reflected in thefollowing statement:

“Legislative measures, rather than further technological advances, are needed if thereis to be any extensive development of VTS”.17

This statement was accompanied with an acknowledgement that this is in directcontrast to the conclusions of the COST301 study.18 The paper referred to embracedthe subject of pilotage and has been used by at least one UK Competent HarbourAuthority to justify its approach to shore based pilot support of ships.19

That appropriate legislation can be enacted is proved by the current operation ofremote pilotage in Rotterdam. However, the ability and will to enforce legislation mustalso be considered. Would sufficient resources be committed to the task of checkingthe claims about ship equipment fit and performance and crew competence, whichthe implementation of any new service would entail?

5.2.7 LiabilityThe question of responsibility and hence liability is repeatedly raised in discussionsof remote pilotage/enhanced navigation assistance. There seems to be commonacceptance that the “owner” of a new service would have to accept liability. However,it also needs to be remembered that the master remains responsible for his ship andwill only participate in a new service on a voluntary basis. With technology extendingthe number of people and systems likely to be involved in an incident (and thereforepossibly considered liable) it will be necessary to have a clear chain of responsibility.

14 Op. Cit. 815 Op. Cit. 10, p. 33616 Discussions at the 12th session of the VTS Committee,St Germain-en-Laye,IALA,September 1999.17 Corbet, A.G.: Development of vessel traffic services: legal considerations. In: Maritime Policy Man-

agement. Vol. 16 (1989), No. 4, p. 277.18 Ibid.19 Whale, I., Harbour Master, Harwich Haven Authority, April 1998, personal communication.


In discussions with port authorities,VTS operators and pilots it was a commonly re-curring and obviously important topic; it has been given as a reason why current“operators” may be slow to act as an incident develops. One pilot predicted that de-velopment of remote pilotage would be slow, as Competent Harbour Authorities areunlikely to want to be liable.20

The consequences of providing poor or wrong remote instructions will have to beconsidered, as will the liability for them. Similarly, the requirement exists for thosewho, having undertaken to accept a new service, wilfully, negligently or mistakenly“get it wrong”. In response to the Secretary-General of IMO’s comments about ex-tending the role of VTS21, BIMCO commented “The shore authority must therefore beprepared to assume all liabilities that may result from its instructions to vessels”.22

Although not prompted by the specific issue of remote pilotage, which it did not setout to address, the UK’s then Department for the Environment Transport and theRegions (DETR) view, following its recent pilotage review, is that senior managersare responsible not only for their decisions but also the consequences of those deci-sions.23 Accountability is the key and thus they have introduced the Port MarineSafety Code.24 This includes but is not limited to pilots/pilotage. The Code is seen asthe basis for ports to issue compliance statements, for subsequent monitoring andthen reporting. This tends towards the International Standards Organisation’s ISO9000 and the ISM Code, with which it will have to be integrated. The Code will haveto cater for both large and small ports and a main task is how to conduct FormalSafety Assessments (FSA).25 This too is a focus of the DETR’s review of pilotage. Italso featured in proposals for European Union Fifth Framework research projects,where the possibility of developing a VTS FSA tool was mentioned.26

Acts of pilotage and hence a pilot’s liability are covered by national legislation. To givetwo examples: in the UK remote pilotage (in either the Dutch or German form) is pro-bably not covered by the Pilotage Act of 1987 and so it is likely that any liability in con-nection with provision of this form of pilotage would be unlimited. It could be arguedthat any instruction given from a VTS centre that interfered with the vessel’s manoeu-vring would relieve the master of his responsibility for the conduct of his vessel.27

20 Harwich pilots, August 1997, personal communication.21 O’Neil, W.: Key note speech to VTS2000. Singapore, 2000.22 NUMAST: Owners cool on extending VTS responsibility. In: NUMAST Telegraph. February

2000, p. 28.23 Op. Cit. 3, p. 924 DETR: Port Marine Safety Code. London: The Stationery Office, 2000.25 Burr, A., DETR, April 1998, personal communication.26 Institute of Ship Operation, Sea Transport and Simulation (ISSUS), Hamburg University of

Applied Sciences: Proposal for EU research project CORINAV. Unpublished document. Ham-burg: ISSUS, 2000.

27 Hinsch, W.: Response to Traffic Situations. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium onVTS. Rotterdam: 1996.


Although set in the wider context of general pilotage, there was an interesting obser-vation by a representative of a UK P&I Club, who speculated that, the introductionof increased liability for a pilot (over the current £1000) might introduce a divisionbetween the pilot and the bridge team.28

In Germany the Pilot Act covers remote pilotage, when administered by a qualifiedpilot, and so a pilot’s liability is limited. Corresponding action by a VTS operator isnot covered by the Pilot Act and so liability is unlimited. Similar problems, of legis-lation written to cope with traditional technologies have also been experienced inthe USA.29,30 Whereas it is usually possible to obtain insurance when the limit of lia-bility is known this is not the case for unlimited liability.31 In the first instance thepossibility exists for the cost (to the pilot) to be passed on in the form of increasedpilotage fees whereas in the latter case he faces financial ruin for no improved incen-tive.

What has been discussed so far is civil liability and, in the UK, a pilot’s liability in thisrespect is limited to £1000. Certainly in the UK, a pilot cannot limit his criminal lia-bility and this forms a strong incentive for a pilot to take care.32 Strangely enough, onno occasion was the possibility or desirability of limiting a “remote pilot’s” liabilityraised. The closest approach was in UK, where pilots providing assistance from aVTS centre were concerned that their limit of liability did not cover work ashore.33

This is a little surprising as Vessel Traffic Services Operators (VTSOs), if sued per-sonally, currently cannot limit their liability, although their means is usually a disin-centive to someone taking this course of action.34 In this respect, therefore, they aredisadvantaged compared to pilots.

In the USA and Canada, where the Coast Guard have the authority to direct shipmovements in the event of a perceived incident, the authority is used sparingly. Thereis no detectable enthusiasm to translate this authority into any form of remotepilotage, although to an untrained legal eye it seems possible that the legal frame-work for enhanced navigation assistance may already be in place. Certainly the pilotsfelt that the Coast Guard had no business considering directing the movement oflarge ship, with which they had no personal experience, although for enhanced navi-gation assistance this would not necessarily be an issue. The potential costs to pilots andcompetent authorities of meeting a case where liability is unlimited would suggest,however, that remote pilotage will not be implemented without a change in the law.

28 Lumbers, K., Miller, T., UK P&I Club, May 1998, personal communication.29 Op. Cit. 10, p. 33630 Op. Cit. 1, p. 2231 Op. Cit. 17, p. 28032 Ibid.33 Op. Cit. 2034 Op. Cit. 17, p. 282


The following was said about mandatory routing systems but it could equally applyto other forms of vessel traffic management:

“Disputes will develop over who is responsible for ships operating within mandatoryrouting systems: the operators of the routing system and the ship owners who use itwill both try to pass responsibility (and hence liability) to the other”.35

The liability aspects of remote pilotage/enhanced navigation assistance are confusingand need to be resolved. However, from the layman’s point of view, if a satisfactorysolution can be found for pilotage then resolution is surely possible.

5.2.8 Conservatism and OppositionReceived wisdom is that the maritime industry, because of the extensive heritage,tradition, and history, is resistant to change. There is general supporting evidencefor this but it should not be made too much of; it could be argued that although thehuman condition is predisposed to resist change yet change is all around us. Thus,where change is beneficial the innovators seem to succeed in the end but having acommercial imperative certainly helps.

Closer inspection of the resistance to the introduction of remote pilotage/enhancednavigation assistance reveals a number of strands of opposition. There are thosewho don’t believe that the technology is “up to it” or that the whole concept is “tech-nology driven”. Others think that the ships, materially, and their crews are not “up toit”. There is a strong resistance to what might be termed applying Air Traffic Controlprocesses and procedures to the sea and, perhaps most predictably of all, there arethose who object because they can see an implication for their livelihood.

None of these strands should be dismissed lightly, although the technology doubtersare probably the easiest to argue against, on the basis that remote pilotage has beenpractised for some time and that its further implementation is technology enabled,rather than driven. As already indicated, those with a jaundiced view of ship andcrew capability have a strong point but this can be tackled by taking a selective pointof view and not seeking a generic change for all vessels.

Those resistant to further encroachment on the traditional conduct of traffic man-agement are perhaps the hardest to argue against, as there seems to be an underlying,emotional resistance.

35 Op. Cit. 1, p. 19


It has been stated that:

“There are more similarities between the marine and aviation operating environ-ments than commonly perceived”,36 and that: “Tradition is fine, but not if it gets in theway of progress”.37

Although a different industry, aviation shares a common basis in transport and thereare influential voices38 recommending some of its practices to the maritime world.By international maritime law the mariner enjoys the right of innocent passage butthe ability to proceed “about his lawful occasions” unfettered is becoming progres-sively constrained. The impact on the public of well publicised marine incidents andthe specific impact of environmental pollution, or the threat of it, sometimes exac-erbated by the continuing practice of illegally discharging tanks at sea, has madegovernments more ready to exercise control over their waters; e.g. United States’introduction of the Oil Pollution Act (1990). This, in some cases, includes watersclaimed as an Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), which can extend to 200 nauticalmiles (nm) from the coast, as in the case of Norway. The result has been a growingnumber of mandatory routes, traffic separation schemes (TSS) and mandatory re-porting points or procedures. This begins to chip away at traditional freedoms, alreadyeroded by radio communications and radar and satellite surveillance and about tobe more seriously affected by the introduction of AIS.

Further erosion is in the offing in UK if Donaldson’s recommendations, followingthe Brear incident, are implemented. One recommendation was to call for the iden-tification of all ships within UK waters and the monitoring of their movements, ig-noring if necessary commercial objections.39 This is now technically feasible. Thismay well be reflected in Europe by the implementation of what is known as theVessel Traffic Monitoring Directive (Directive 2002/59/EC), not to mention the im-plications of the security measures flowing from the United States and their impacton IMO.

Overall, to show the divergence of opinion The Secretary-General of IMO has saidthat:

“If shore control of ships through VTS will improve the safety of international ship-ping, then we should welcome it and find ways to overcome the difficulties that standin the way of its implementation”.40

36 Op. Cit. 10, p. 18537 Op. Cit. 2138 Op. Cit. 1, p. 2839 Donaldson, J.: Safer ships, cleaner seas. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1994, p. 386.40 Op. Cit. 21


However, the then President of the Federal Chamber of Pilots in Germany would nothave been persuaded. After discussing Air Traffic Control, in the context of shorebased pilotage, he concluded that:

“ATC can be applied to shipping when ships can fly.We know from experience whenevera ship goes three dimensional – I mean to the bottom – something has gone wrong”.41

Pilots would appear to have the most to lose, from a livelihood point of view. Manyof them see themselves as the best guarantee of a ship’s safe entry/exit, although ithas to be admitted that this is not “copper bottomed”. However, in the context of sub-standard ships and ships where masters just don’t get the practice at shiphandlingthat they might need in a given port the pilots do have a good case. However, sub-standard ships can either be improved or not allowed to participate in remote pilotage/enhanced navigation assistance and the shiphandling capability of a master can beassessed. Undoubtedly the implementation of a new practice would see less instancesof pilotage but there is some compensation in the introduction of remote pilotage.This, of course, requires the acquisition of new skills and may mean a pay differentialto sea service, both of which are open to negotiation. However, the indications ema-nating from Rotterdam are that a dramatic drop in the number of pilots, due to theimplementation of remote pilotage, is not anticipated.

5.2.9 Realisation of a Commercial BenefitAt the heart of thoughts of implementing remote pilotage/enhanced navigation assist-ance, assuming that maintaining the current level of safety is the minimum accept-able standard, lies the realisation of a commercial benefit. This applies to both partiesinvolved, the port and the ship (in the shape of the owner/charterer). There is clearbenefit to both sides in any procedure that allows a vessel to enter port when it wouldotherwise be unable to. However, looking beyond a “one off” implementation inpoor weather it seems clear that provision of a service by a port needs to be costeffective to run and reaching the required standards for ship and crew, needs toshow a cost benefit. From the ship point of view this would be assisted if it were ableto qualify in more than one port as the cost of implementation can then be set againsta larger number of reduced port entry fees. However, this introduces thoughts ofstandardisation. There can be no hard and fast rules, each port, in conjunction withits customers, will need to seek their unique solution. There will need to be consid-eration for what other ports are doing, not least in case their plans give them a com-petitive advantage. Although only one port’s figures, it has been suggested that areduction in costs of between 20% and 50% might result from combining VTS andpilotage operations and implementing remote pilotage; the lower figure being as-cribed to the pilots and the upper to the port.

41 Op. Cit. 9


As a final comment on this aspect, there is no difficulty in agreeing with Americanresearch, which concluded that:

“History shows that shipping companies adopt new technologies if their actual usesubstantially reduces operational risk and uncertainty (and thereby economic risk).The speed of adoption depends on availability and reliability of the technology, itsproven value through demonstrated effective application and its cost”.42

6 ConclusionsThe fundamental step forward proposed in this paper is the distinction between theRemote Pilotage and Enhanced Navigation Assistance. Definitions for both newservices have been established, making clear that a pilot is not embarked and statingwho provides the service. This should avoid confusion when the proposed new serv-ices and other practices involving VTS and pilotage are being discussed. Althoughbecoming better known, the subject still requires considerably more publicity withinthe maritime community. Lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues in-volved could delay implementation.

At the international level, the climate is being prepared for a move towards the avia-tion model of traffic control. This will be a slow process and the model cannot justbe implanted as a replacement for current VTS. However, there are aspects of theaviation model that could bring a significant improvement in the area of substandardships; albeit at a cost and against the opposition of a conservative maritime commu-nity. Although specifically beneficial to thoughts of implementing new services, thebenefits of a common language, a seaworthiness certification process, standardisedprocedures and the filing of passage plans are not restricted to them alone.

6.1 ConsiderationsBefore considering the implementation of a new service the cost of such a system mustbe established and a cost-benefit analysis made, which shows that the new service(s)is (are) better for a port than employing purely onboard pilots. Given that implement-ing any new service will need time to settle and is likely to run in parallel with main-taining the current level of pilots, the period over which a return will be requiredcould be a key factor in the commercial calculations.

For the foreseeable future, onboard pilotage will not disappear. Amongst other cate-gories, it is expected to remain a requirement for: U/VLCCs, passenger vessels, vesselscarrying certain types of hazardous cargo, substandard ships, ships with manoeu-vring constraints, such as small under keel clearance.

Being a potential subset of VTS, the justification arguments for any new servicesclosely follow those put forward for VTS, when port authorities are considering theallocation of scarce funds.

42 Op. Cit. 10, pp. 261–262


There may be a need to take into account the public’s view of the port’s approach toits civic duty and responsibility towards the environment. It is also possible that, justas meeting favourable conditions can reduce motor and household insurance policies,the level of services its VTS provides could affect a port’s insurance premiums.

Bearing in mind that modern VTS systems are expensive and complex and are gen-erally perceived to be a prerequisite for the operation of remote pilotage/enhancednavigation assistance, it can be safely assumed that many ports around the worldwill find that the equations do not currently run in favour of implementation. Thisthen leads to potential problems of current shipping being adapted for, and futureshipping being built to accommodate, remote pilotage/enhanced navigation assis-tance in some ports, whilst still using embarked pilots in others. Such two-tier oper-ation, with a possible impact on equipment fit, would not be easily embraced byship owners. Their response is likely to be effected by the cost of the equipment, thechange in pilotage fees and the perceived additional benefit to the ship owner in safeand efficient navigation. Thus a challenge for any new service will be to require min-imal change to a ship’s equipment. Any additional equipment should be “low cost”and additional functionality be provided by “add ons” to existing equipment. Thiswould imply the use of commercial off the shelf equipment.

Many of the disadvantages identified will need to be addressed in preparations forimplementation, and some have already been addressed. The loss of the port’s repre-sentative on board when an incident occurs and the consequent lack of his reportwill now apply to a wider range of ships. The same will apply to Port State Controlconsiderations, although for the vessels involved in a new service the risk should besmall, given the qualification process that the vessels involved will have to pass.

6.2 Ability to ImplementSubject to changes in legislation and the IMO VTS guidelines, the establishing of acommercial benefit, an acceptable level of safety and the indicators identified in thisarticle being satisfactorily met, more flexible vessel traffic management is possible.However, the qualifications to this statement are not trivial and even with the re-quired “political will” they will take time to achieve for the majority of vessels towhich more flexible vessel traffic management could apply. Thus the key elementsfor implementation are seen as:

• Demonstrating a commercial benefit

• Establishing a safe operating level

• The presence of a suitable legislative framework

• Resolution of the liability issue

The first is seen as the prime requirement, without which the proposed new servicesare unlikely to get beyond the trials stage. It is the most effective driver of standardsin ships and crews. Here there is a nice judgement to be made by two parties, as im-plementation will require investment by both ship owner and port. The port, usually,


deals with a variety of ships and ships, usually, go to a variety of ports. Thus there islikely to be a complex and uncertain calculation involved over the benefits to beachieved by either side, with neither side having control of all the factors. Thiswould indicate that the relevant international associations will need to play a part.The second is a given and requires the necessary standard to be established, followingFSA. For a port, this may mean a further investment in its VTS and associated per-sonnel, which may tilt the financial balance against implementation. The third is arequirement, if a new service is to be allowed to operate. This requires initial “politicalwill”, probably prompted by the ports concerned and then time for legislation to beput in place. The fourth is a requirement, if both parties involved (ship and “remotepilot”) are to voluntarily participate in any new service. The question of liabilityneeds to be actively pursued; currently no option, other than putting a remote pilotin the same position as an embarked pilot, has readily presented itself. Resolution ofthis issue is likely to come concurrently with progress towards appropriate legisla-tion. However, unless the whole concept is to be driven by legislation, which is con-sidered impractical, then the relevance of the third and fourth points depends uponsuccess with the first and second.

Apart from the establishing of a mutual commercial benefit, it is believed that thereis no problem facing implementation that could not be overcome, given the will toproceed. However recognition of the commercial benefit will be required to stimu-late the required “political will”.

The subject of vessel manoeuvrability in confined waters will be key to taking eitherproposed new service to their logical conclusion and good manoeuvrability will be aplus factor for vessels seeking to qualify for the services as currently proposed. How-ever, it is concluded that improved manoeuvrability in confined waters is likely tofollow successful implementation and the demonstration of a proven commercialadvantage for those qualifying.

One problem facing those wishing to implement a new service is the use of experiencewith current standards and practices to judge a future activity with different stan-dards and practices. The effect of this natural human trait needs to be recognisedand a strategy to combat it will be needed to avoid undue delay in implementation.

Certification of and application to named personnel, following existing PEC proce-dures, will ease implementation of any new services. With ships generally remainingthe same from one voyage to the next, a significant difficulty will be the rapid turn-over in ships’ crews and the declaration of differences to previous known informationand defects. The problems that they present could be overcome if sufficient trust ex-isted between port and ship, which is a strong reason for restricting new services tonamed personnel.

Documents

How remote is remote pilotage?