MSC Armonia Hits Dock Today

[BermudaBound2014]

I just spent some time trying to find other cruise ships with similar crashes. I found quite a few ships (cargo, ferries, yachts, etc...) making “hot” landings, but no other cruise ships.

 

There was the ncl star ramming the rcl ship in Bermuda but that was due to broken pier lines. The Infinity looks like it was still moving in when it took out the dock in Ketchikan, but that was ruled as wind. The Issue in roatan doesn’t appear to be a sea condition issue.

 

There must be other cruise ships that have had similar misfortunes at the pier, right?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chengkp75]

Well, lets see, Disney hit the dock in the Bahamas in Sept/Oct. Grandeur hit a dock in Mexico and put a 42' gash in her side, in 2005. Costa Europa hit a dock in Egypt in 2010, killing 3 crew. Carnival Victory hit the pier in NYC in 2007. Norwegian Star hit the dock in NYC in 2012. Plus several small passenger ships that hit docks over the years. This is just a quick run through Google for about 3 minutes. Plenty more where these come from.

[BermudaBound2014]

Here’s the grandeur crash

 

 

And Disney

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mashable.com/2017/10/04/disney-cruise-ship-stops-at-dock.amp

[BermudaBound2014]

Pride hitting pier in Baltimore

https://www.google.com/amp/www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-gangway-crash-ntsb-20170307-story,amp.html

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mafig]

I remember Grandeur the most because they sailed her for quite a while with that gash without fixing it.

[BermudaBound2014]

I remember Grandeur the most because they sailed her for quite a while with that gash without fixing it.

 

 

Grandeur has had a bit of bad luck. Isn’t she the ship with the aft fire? Also, isn’t she the ship that got hit by the star in Bermuda :(

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kennicott]

Yes there is the Celebrity video where the ship was a dead stop feet from the pier and misjudged wind/waves pushed here in Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Dead Stop? I guess I read a different NTSB evaluation than you. True, there was a stiff wind with gusts quartering the vessel on the starboard bow, which was of course one of the contributing factors to that accident, a current was not a factor. However----

 

 

"The pilot told investigators that he was not part of the pre-arrival brief but that he did talk to the master about the expected winds at docking. He said the master assured him they could dock within the parameters being reported to them. The pilot stated the master told him they would COME IN A BIT FASTER AND WIDER than normal due to the wind."

 

 

"The master stated he noticed the ship “drifting a lot” and that he then advised the forward mooring station to drop the starboard anchor"

 

 

"The master told investigators he ordered the starboard anchor to be dropped when the vessel was about 450 meters from the dock because he felt that the bow of the vessel was rapidly approaching the dock and the bow thrusters were unable to slow the motion of the bow." "The pilot told investigators that dropping the starboard anchor SLOWED the motion of the bow toward the pier."

 

 

"The pilot said there was no current and that he saw nothing that would have caused the ship to do what it did. Investigators noted from a closed-circuit television (CCTV) recording that, after the starboard anchor was dropped, the stern approached the dock more rapidly."

 

 

"According to the pilot, the thrusters and anchor were able to control the bow but “whatever maneuvers they made with the pods weren't sufficient to hold the ship and it made a hard landing on the dolphins back there.” "At 1355, with the after part of the vessel pivoting toward berth 3, the VDR recorded someone shouting, “the stern, the stern!” and, at 1356, the vessel allided with the berth." "Both the master and the staff captain told investigators that the master took over the conn at this point; however, the ship’s logbook does not reflect a change of conn from the staff captain to the master and nothing was heard on the VDR to indicate the master had the conn. Further, CCTV footage showed the master, pilot, and staff captain operating the bow thrusters and the master and the staff captain operating the pods after the anchor had been dropped."

 

 

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the Celebrity Infinity’s allision with the dock was the master’s failure to plan, monitor, and EXECUTE a safe docking evolution."

 

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAB1736.pdf

[nealstuber]

Dead Stop? I guess I read a different NTSB evaluation than you. True, there was a stiff wind with gusts quartering the vessel on the starboard bow, which was of course one of the contributing factors to that accident, a current was not a factor. However----

 

 

 

 

 

"The pilot told investigators that he was not part of the pre-arrival brief but that he did talk to the master about the expected winds at docking. He said the master assured him they could dock within the parameters being reported to them. The pilot stated the master told him they would COME IN A BIT FASTER AND WIDER than normal due to the wind."

 

 

 

 

 

"The master stated he noticed the ship “drifting a lot” and that he then advised the forward mooring station to drop the starboard anchor"

 

 

 

 

 

"The master told investigators he ordered the starboard anchor to be dropped when the vessel was about 450 meters from the dock because he felt that the bow of the vessel was rapidly approaching the dock and the bow thrusters were unable to slow the motion of the bow." "The pilot told investigators that dropping the starboard anchor SLOWED the motion of the bow toward the pier."

 

 

 

 

 

"The pilot said there was no current and that he saw nothing that would have caused the ship to do what it did. Investigators noted from a closed-circuit television (CCTV) recording that, after the starboard anchor was dropped, the stern approached the dock more rapidly."

 

 

 

 

 

"According to the pilot, the thrusters and anchor were able to control the bow but “whatever maneuvers they made with the pods weren't sufficient to hold the ship and it made a hard landing on the dolphins back there.” "At 1355, with the after part of the vessel pivoting toward berth 3, the VDR recorded someone shouting, “the stern, the stern!” and, at 1356, the vessel allided with the berth." "Both the master and the staff captain told investigators that the master took over the conn at this point; however, the ship’s logbook does not reflect a change of conn from the staff captain to the master and nothing was heard on the VDR to indicate the master had the conn. Further, CCTV footage showed the master, pilot, and staff captain operating the bow thrusters and the master and the staff captain operating the pods after the anchor had been dropped."

 

 

 

 

 

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the Celebrity Infinity’s allision with the dock was the master’s failure to plan, monitor, and EXECUTE a safe docking evolution."

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAB1736.pdf

 

 

 

Translation: The Master predicted the weather wrong so its his fault. It was strictly ego, he had no pressure from his management to control costs (by not asking for tugs) and to bring the ship in to port on time. Even with the scroutinous (no sure that’s a word) hindsight of the NTSB, it seems like stopped asking why before getting to a root cause that might prevent similar accidents.

 

There simply is no comparison between the two videos. Armonia obviously lost control much further from the dock at much higher speed. The potential for much greater damage is obvious.

 

As to who gets the blame, we might never know. But the way MSC handled this episode, it seems much more likely that it will swept under the rug, at least the X allusion found a straw man.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

Translation: The Master predicted the weather wrong so its his fault. It was strictly ego, he had no pressure from his management to control costs (by not asking for tugs) and to bring the ship in to port on time. Even with the scroutinous (no sure that’s a word) hindsight of the NTSB, it seems like stopped asking why before getting to a root cause that might prevent similar accidents.

 

There simply is no comparison between the two videos. Armonia obviously lost control much further from the dock at much higher speed. The potential for much greater damage is obvious.

 

As to who gets the blame, we might never know. But the way MSC handled this episode, it seems much more likely that it will swept under the rug, at least the X allusion found a straw man.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

How did MSC "handle this episode"? The information from the NTSB was obtained both because the allision happened in the US, so the NTSB was asked by USCG to investigate, and because the US has a policy of publishing these reports. The Armonia allision happened in Honduras, so it is up to the Honduran Port State Control agency, the GDMM (General Directorate of Merchant Marine). They are the investigative agency involved, and have no requirement to ask the US NTSB anything. How they investigate the incident, and whether they publish a report to "find a straw man", is up to their Honduran law, not MSC. The only other agency that would be involved would be the Panamanian Maritime Authority, since the ship is Panamanian flag. The USCG can ask to audit the Honduran investigation, if a large number of US citizens were onboard, but they have no right to question anyone, or inspect anything without permission from the GDMM.

 

Did Celebrity publish the NTSB report? No. Will MSC publish the report? Likely no. Tell me the difference, and where things were "swept under the carpet".

 

And where do you get off saying the Celebrity incident was "strictly ego". The Captain made a professional judgement call, based on his years of experience. The Captain did not even have the conn at the time, the Staff Captain had it. The pilot, the advisor on local conditions, did not mention any reservations about docking in the wind conditions, either at the time of the incident or in his testimony, he just stated that he "discussed" it with the Captain, which is normal procedure during the Master/Pilot conference. As the NTSB found, the Master's docking plan was faulty, whether because of poor understanding of the actual conditions, a poor understanding of the way the ship handles in unusual conditions, or just poor judgement. This is a lack of training, not an overabundance of ego.

 

Not sure what more of a root cause you are looking for (I do root cause analysis all the time for ships), than "the Captain failed to plan, monitor, and execute a safe docking evolution".

[nealstuber]

How did MSC "handle this episode"? The information from the NTSB was obtained both because the allision happened in the US, so the NTSB was asked by USCG to investigate, and because the US has a policy of publishing these reports. The Armonia allision happened in Honduras, so it is up to the Honduran Port State Control agency, the GDMM (General Directorate of Merchant Marine). They are the investigative agency involved, and have no requirement to ask the US NTSB anything. How they investigate the incident, and whether they publish a report to "find a straw man", is up to their Honduran law, not MSC. The only other agency that would be involved would be the Panamanian Maritime Authority, since the ship is Panamanian flag. The USCG can ask to audit the Honduran investigation, if a large number of US citizens were onboard, but they have no right to question anyone, or inspect anything without permission from the GDMM.

 

 

 

Did Celebrity publish the NTSB report? No. Will MSC publish the report? Likely no. Tell me the difference, and where things were "swept under the carpet".

 

 

 

And where do you get off saying the Celebrity incident was "strictly ego". The Captain made a professional judgement call, based on his years of experience. The Captain did not even have the conn at the time, the Staff Captain had it. The pilot, the advisor on local conditions, did not mention any reservations about docking in the wind conditions, either at the time of the incident or in his testimony, he just stated that he "discussed" it with the Captain, which is normal procedure during the Master/Pilot conference. As the NTSB found, the Master's docking plan was faulty, whether because of poor understanding of the actual conditions, a poor understanding of the way the ship handles in unusual conditions, or just poor judgement. This is a lack of training, not an overabundance of ego.

 

 

 

Not sure what more of a root cause you are looking for (I do root cause analysis all the time for ships), than "the Captain failed to plan, monitor, and execute a safe docking evolution".

 

 

 

Easy KP, the thing about the Captains ego on X was sarcasm, I think he may have made the call he made in part for the reasons I stated after - pressure to do his job on time and on budget.

 

I’ve been on this thread from the start and I understand who disclosed what and the difference between Alaska and Nicaragua with respect to jurisdiction. My point was that even with a third party investigating the situation and disclosing is findings after lengthy review, the root cause may not be clear. I have tremendous respect for your work doing root cause findings for your company and would be interested how you handled situations where you found the root cause was the policies and practices of the company you work for.

 

My peeve here can be summed up in one word: “Grazed”. I’m not sure if you’ve had the opportunity to have internet with streaming, but I really can’t believe you would say it was an honest assessment to say the Armonia “Grazed” the dock in Coxen. Maybe it’s one of those things that’s not as bad as it looks, but it sure looks bad.

 

So what the heck is my point? That The findings of any third party made public are largely irrelevant - the cruise line knows what happened and we have to trust them to do their job to keep it from happening again. MSC’s mealy mouthed grazing statement does not inspire that trust. I have not researched what X said in the immediate aftermath of their thing, but if they said something to the affect of “unpredicted winds and sea conditions resulted in an allusion, yatta yatta” that would pass the smell test.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited April 18, 2018 by nealstuber

[Expat Cruise]

First I have nothing but respect for Harbor Pilots, the local knowledge they have of the ocean, docks, and under the water is second to none. My opinion is that US Harbor or Port Pilots are among the best trained, Third World Pilots less so.

 

But I do not believe even US Harbor Pilots really understand today's large cruise ships. The effect of wind and currents on such large ships, new systems to control ships, etc. Pilots are in the best position to provide information to the Captain. To become a US Harbor Pilot you need 2 years sea service as an officer, hold a minimum 2nd Mates or Master 1,600 ton license.

 

Today'c cruise ships make 1600 tons look like toys. The Captain has years on large ships and know how his ship will perform, the Harbor Pilot gives him local details and knowledge which he/she needs. Then it is the Captain who knows how to best use and apply that information for his ship.

 

It is always on the Captain unless the Port Pilot provides false or wrong information. If a chart says the channel is clear and 20 meters deep, knowing that a unmarked ship is sunk and only 15 meters deep and does not inform the Captain then maybe on the Harbor Pilot. This falls on the Captain of the ship unless unseen mechanical issues happen.

[chengkp75]

We frequently find that the root cause is a policy or procedure that needs reviewing. We then go through a management of change procedure to optimize the resulting policy or procedure, taking input from all stakeholders. Vessel ISM Codes are living documents that are revised continually, including a general "annual review" where everyone can air all their complaints about the system and each item is actively reviewed to see if it has merit.

 

I believe the use of the term "grazed" is due to the fact that the ship, as far as I can see, and understand of the pier arrangement, did not actually strike the pier itself, but the area between the pier and the mooring dolphin, which is not a solid area of concrete and earth, but a metal structure bridging between two concrete structures.

[chengkp75]

First I have nothing but respect for Harbor Pilots, the local knowledge they have of the ocean, docks, and under the water is second to none. My opinion is that US Harbor or Port Pilots are among the best trained, Third World Pilots less so.

 

But I do not believe even US Harbor Pilots really understand today's large cruise ships. The effect of wind and currents on such large ships, new systems to control ships, etc. Pilots are in the best position to provide information to the Captain. To become a US Harbor Pilot you need 2 years sea service as an officer, hold a minimum 2nd Mates or Master 1,600 ton license.

 

Today'c cruise ships make 1600 tons look like toys. The Captain has years on large ships and know how his ship will perform, the Harbor Pilot gives him local details and knowledge which he/she needs. Then it is the Captain who knows how to best use and apply that information for his ship.

 

It is always on the Captain unless the Port Pilot provides false or wrong information. If a chart says the channel is clear and 20 meters deep, knowing that a unmarked ship is sunk and only 15 meters deep and does not inform the Captain then maybe on the Harbor Pilot. This falls on the Captain of the ship unless unseen mechanical issues happen.

 

And if you believe that those minimum requirements for a pilots position are what entry level pilots have, I've got a bridge to sell you. I've known several Captains, with years of experience, who have decided to go ashore and become US pilots, and the difficulties that they have actually getting a pilot's job is incredible. There is the testing of local knowledge, of course, which includes drawing the harbor and all it's navigation aids from memory, but there is also the scrutiny of the existing pilots many of who also have years of seagoing experience, and who may or may not feel that the applicants experience is sufficient.

 

Most pilots in the US will use the simulator training available at the maritime colleges and universities, as well as several union and private training facilities to learn how to handle large ships in all kinds of situations. These simulators are also quite frequently booked by foreign pilot's associations for their training. These simulators have software to emulate the most modern propulsion systems, and wind and current models that were used when the cruise ships were designed. Then the particulars of a given port are put into the system, including historical weather, currents, silting, and other local data, and the pilots train to bring the ships in and out, over and over.

 

Once a pilot gets a job, he does not start out moving the Oasis of the Seas. He must start out on the smallest class of vessels, as an apprentice, with a qualified pilot onboard, until a number of pilots approve his work, and then he can move up to the next class of vessels (typically by tonnage and type), and it won't be for many years until he can handle a cruise ship.

 

In fact, the pilots are the ones who know more about ship handling in close quarters than nearly every Captain out there. The pilot does it every day, in the same port, with different ships. The Captain may call at a port for a few weeks, or only once, and not return for months. And he has days at sea when he is not docking a ship. Not so the pilot. Every day is docking or undocking.

 

And, it is ALWAYS "on the Captain". As I've stated, the pilot is an advisor, who may or may not be given the conn, and who may be relieved at any time if the Captain doesn't like what is being done.

[Expat Cruise]

Never said would be hired at this level, but the facts are the facts. As for selling me a bridge never going to happen. Funny you write a long post and in the end the same result I posted: It is always on the Captain you posted "And, it is ALWAYS "on the Captain"

Requirements for Florida,

Applicants must have the following qualifications:

• Be a U.S. citizen, 21 years old;
  
• Have a high school diploma;
  
• Be physically and mentally fit;
  
• Drug and alcohol dependency free;
  
• Have at least 2 years sea service as an officer under your license; and
  
• Hold a minimum 2nd Mates or Master 1,600 ton license, a USCG licensed First Class Pilot in U.S. ports or the Great Lakes, or certain service on certain specific type of military vessels.
  

[chengkp75]

And, again, if a pilot was hired with those qualifications, he would be handling ships of a couple thousand gross tons, and as an apprentice, not on his own, for a couple of years, not a large cruise ship. And harbor pilots don't just "hang out a shingle" and start their own business, they belong to an association which regulates their training and advancement, and which represents them to the governmental agencies that license their operation to bring ships into the port.

 

And you know what? You could have a person with virtually the same qualifications, only with an unlimited 3rd Mates license rather than a 1600 ton Master's license, who is in charge of Oasis of the Seas for 8 hours a day, every day. Everyone starts out somewhere, and entry level qualifications are just that, entry level.

[chengkp75]

And, you misunderstood what I was saying. "It is always on the Captain" means it is always his responsibility, but the pilot is most often the most experienced person to bring the ship into port, and the wise Captain defers to this experience, while knowing that his livelihood (the Captain's) rests on the actions of another (the pilot). If pilots were not qualified to handle the ships that are calling at their port, do you think the government would keep them around? Does the government get a kick out of repairing docks, losing business when ships can't dock, etc? If the Captain, any Captain, was thought to be more proficient than the local pilot, then the government would say "heck, fire the pilots, collect the pilot's fee for ourselves, and let the Captains handle the ships".

[kennicott]

I believe the use of the term "grazed" is due to the fact that the ship, as far as I can see, and understand of the pier arrangement, did not actually strike the pier itself, but the area between the pier and the mooring dolphin, which is not a solid area of concrete and earth, but a metal structure bridging between two concrete structures.

 

I agree, it was obvious that the ship missed the main pier and cleaved off what wasn't much more than a real nice reinforced catwalk after eating up a floating plastic camel with a floating foam filled rubber fender attached. I'm still not certain how much damage, if any, was done to the mooring dolphin just to the east of this pier extension. MSC's statement that the ship grazed the pier is certainly a lot more on point than some of the almost hysterical exaggerations of the incident you read in news accounts, etc. Reason I'm interested in the port damage is that my brother-in-law and nephew have been building huge bridges and piers for over 60 years. The ten million estimate must be way high, but I can't get his more detailed opinion until I am able to find pictures, preferably, looking down, of the east end of the pier since damaged. I have some good "before" shots. If indeed they are throwing that kind of money at gravy projects down there he might be considering a move.

[sidari]

First I have nothing but respect for Harbor Pilots, the local knowledge they have of the ocean, docks, and under the water is second to none. My opinion is that US Harbor or Port Pilots are among the best trained, Third World Pilots less so.

 

But I do not believe even US Harbor Pilots really understand today's large cruise ships. The effect of wind and currents on such large ships, new systems to control ships, etc. Pilots are in the best position to provide information to the Captain. To become a US Harbor Pilot you need 2 years sea service as an officer, hold a minimum 2nd Mates or Master 1,600 ton license.

 

Today'c cruise ships make 1600 tons look like toys. The Captain has years on large ships and know how his ship will perform, the Harbor Pilot gives him local details and knowledge which he/she needs. Then it is the Captain who knows how to best use and apply that information for his ship.

 

It is always on the Captain unless the Port Pilot provides false or wrong information. If a chart says the channel is clear and 20 meters deep, knowing that a unmarked ship is sunk and only 15 meters deep and does not inform the Captain then maybe on the Harbor Pilot. This falls on the Captain of the ship unless unseen mechanical issues happen.

 

 

One thing you have missed out here is that almost all of the MSC cruise ship Captains have actually come from their larger fleet of commercial ships and it is likely that they will have sailed on vessels of varying sizes and cargo`s.

As you may be aware when things go wrong the best you can do is minimise as fast as possible any potential hazard.

[sidari]

Recent video showing the damage on both sides of the Armonia and what looks like a welded plate on the Port side below the anchor.

 

 

At 26 seconds in this one you can see the remains of the end of the pier.

 

 

MSC Opera Grazing a pier.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by sidari

[sidari]

This while not an incident is worth a watch just for the craziness.

 

[chengkp75]

One thing you have missed out here is that almost all of the MSC cruise ship Captains have actually come from their larger fleet of commercial ships and it is likely that they will have sailed on vessels of varying sizes and cargo`s.

As you may be aware when things go wrong the best you can do is minimise as fast as possible any potential hazard.

 

And those ships have way, way less maneuverability than a cruise ship. Single propeller direct coupled to a reversing diesel engine, single rudder, a couple of bow thrusters, to move a ship that has the mass and momentum of a ship carrying two Oasis of the seas (197,000 deadweight tons (the weight of cargo), v. 100,000 tons displacement for Oasis (the weight of the ship) plus its own weight. So, handling what amounts to a light and agile cruise ship is a vastly different thing from their prior experience on the container ships.

[kennicott]

This is beginning to sound more and more like a "Move along folks, nothing to see here" experience. From the pictures provided by sidari it looks like that mooring dolphin immediately off the east end of the pier extension wasn't compromised either. https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=8564

[Expat Cruise]

One thing you have missed out here is that almost all of the MSC cruise ship Captains have actually come from their larger fleet of commercial ships and it is likely that they will have sailed on vessels of varying sizes and cargo`s.

As you may be aware when things go wrong the best you can do is minimise as fast as possible any potential hazard.

 

 

I'm sorry what you missed here is what I said so I guess I need to be clearer for you.

 

The Captain of the ship has the best knowledge of his ship, how the ship preforms, they system on the ship and how to safely operate the ship. The Captain use the Harbor Pilot as a tool to improve the operation of his ship.

 

The Harbor Pilot, and in this case a third world Pilot has the best knowledge of his local port and the issues about his/her port. They do not need to know anything about the operation of the cruise ships systems or very little. As they only provide information to the Master and he she then uses that information to operate the ship.

[chengkp75]

I'm sorry what you missed here is what I said so I guess I need to be clearer for you.

 

The Captain of the ship has the best knowledge of his ship, how the ship preforms, they system on the ship and how to safely operate the ship. The Captain use the Harbor Pilot as a tool to improve the operation of his ship.

 

The Harbor Pilot, and in this case a third world Pilot has the best knowledge of his local port and the issues about his/her port. They do not need to know anything about the operation of the cruise ships systems or very little. As they only provide information to the Master and he she then uses that information to operate the ship.

 

This is not quite accurate. In 95% of harbor maneuverings, the pilot "has the conn", meaning he is the one giving the orders as to how to steer the ship, how to use the propulsion to regulate speed, and how to use the thrusters to swing or maneuver the ship. This is generally required by law. So, yes, in fact they do need to know how the ship operates, how it handles in varying weather conditions, and how the ship handles in the local harbor environment. This transfer of the "conn" is quite normal on ships, all ships, and happens every single day, several times a day. Each bridge watch officer has "the conn" during his watch, even if the Captain is on the bridge, unless the Captain formally states that he is taking over the conn. You will note that this is a point brought up in the Celebrity NTSB report, that no formal change of conn was recorded on the bridge voice recorder, which runs 24/7 and records everything said on the bridge of every ship. In "restricted waters" like entering/leaving port, the Captain can give the conn to any officer he feels is capable of handling the ship, with the knowledge, again, that whatever happens it is not the conning officer's responsibility, but the Captain's. Frequently on cruise ships, which carry a Staff Captain (who has the same license as the Captain, and virtually the same experience), the Captain will give the conn to the Staff to allow the Staff to gain/retain experience in ship handling. As I say, normally until the ship is virtually stopped close to the pier and the ship is maneuvering mainly with thrusters to come alongside, the pilot has the conn, and when docking the Captain may take it back, or he may allow the pilot to continue to give orders, but the Captain himself will operate the controls.

 

Frequently, there will be two pilots, the harbor pilot who takes the ship from the sea buoy to close to the dock, and the docking master, who is normally provided by the tug company and directs the ship and the tugs to berth the ship.

 

In most countries, unless the Captain has obtained pilotage for the particular port he is entering, he must take a pilot and cannot "operate" the ship without the pilot, or without the pilot having the conn, without very good reasons, which may come up later if there is a problem. Such questions as "why did you relieve the harbor pilot, with his decades of local experience handling (not just advising) ships in the port" is the first question asked by investigators when a problem occurs and the pilot was not conning the vessel.

[Expat Cruise]

This is not quite accurate. In 95% of harbor maneuverings, the pilot "has the conn", meaning he is the one giving the orders as to how to steer the ship, how to use the propulsion to regulate speed, and how to use the thrusters to swing or maneuver the ship. This is generally required by law. So, yes, in fact they do need to know how the ship operates, how it handles in varying weather conditions, and how the ship handles in the local harbor environment. This transfer of the "conn" is quite normal on ships, all ships, and happens every single day, several times a day. Each bridge watch officer has "the conn" during his watch, even if the Captain is on the bridge, unless the Captain formally states that he is taking over the conn. You will note that this is a point brought up in the Celebrity NTSB report, that no formal change of conn was recorded on the bridge voice recorder, which runs 24/7 and records everything said on the bridge of every ship. In "restricted waters" like entering/leaving port, the Captain can give the conn to any officer he feels is capable of handling the ship, with the knowledge, again, that whatever happens it is not the conning officer's responsibility, but the Captain's. Frequently on cruise ships, which carry a Staff Captain (who has the same license as the Captain, and virtually the same experience), the Captain will give the conn to the Staff to allow the Staff to gain/retain experience in ship handling. As I say, normally until the ship is virtually stopped close to the pier and the ship is maneuvering mainly with thrusters to come alongside, the pilot has the conn, and when docking the Captain may take it back, or he may allow the pilot to continue to give orders, but the Captain himself will operate the controls.

 

Frequently, there will be two pilots, the harbor pilot who takes the ship from the sea buoy to close to the dock, and the docking master, who is normally provided by the tug company and directs the ship and the tugs to berth the ship.

 

In most countries, unless the Captain has obtained pilotage for the particular port he is entering, he must take a pilot and cannot "operate" the ship without the pilot, or without the pilot having the conn, without very good reasons, which may come up later if there is a problem. Such questions as "why did you relieve the harbor pilot, with his decades of local experience handling (not just advising) ships in the port" is the first question asked by investigators when a problem occurs and the pilot was not conning the vessel.

 

It seems you are just posting to show how much you know, but missing the post. Do you really want to post here that anything in this statement is wrong

"

 

The Captain of the ship has the best knowledge of his ship, how the ship preforms, they system on the ship and how to safely operate the ship."

 

You really want to try to say any pilot has better information about the ship than the Captain?

 

 

I notice you list cruise ship chief engineer in your profile, but no line named..... are they even still in business as a cruise ship company?