gCaptain: Proposed Bill Mandates An Increase Of VTS Authority
ACI
· 2 years ago
John,
Maybe i'm lost in translation but what I infere with this new law is just a a matter of cleaning up responsabilities in the case of an accident, only for the media and the general public. Something like "It is not my fault, I told the master to slow down, and he kept on going, that's what happened".
Looks that you are not (your representatives and the general public) being too wise; How many vessels have operated in the bay for how many years? How many oil spills? (not a difficult answer will come)
What worries me more, I'm sorry to tell you, is not your country, but mine, where we copy your laws without thinking it, without considering your constrains, just because you are the US.
Thank you for mentioning me in one of your post,
BB
· 2 years ago
ACI, I think they have the right intentions and doubt they intend to nail anyone but it WILL happen. John, it's only been a few weeks since the incident and already they propose law? You're too optimistic on this one.
Pirata
· 2 years ago
Did anyone else notice that the AIS track of the tug Revolution changed a couple of days ago? The original showed the tug forward of the port bow, as if to stay between the Ship and Trouble, like any good tug skipper. The new AIS track of the Revolution never goes forward of the port quarter of the Cosco Busan.
BB
· 2 years ago
pirata, you mean the track on boatingsf.com's website?
Fred Fry
· 2 years ago
Wow, what a complete lack of thinking this through. The ship was already under the direction of a pilot onboard the ship when the vessel ended up in an accident. Now they want to pass a law to have the ship piloted from a remote location. Sheer insanity, especially considering the cause of this accident has yet to be determined, as mentioned already. Just think if the problem was related to proper communication. That will only be worse under VTS instructions, as ships will just 'yes' the VTS operator to death whether they understand the instruction or not.
Take the constant stream of stories out of the UK of drivers blindly following their GPS Navigators, doing the most insane maneuvers, simply because their GPS told them to 'turn now'. That is what this bill is encouraging; 'What happened?' 'We did what the VTS operator told us to do.'
Unfortunately, the only defense is probably to publicize the failings of VTS, and from what I have seen, there is no shortage of them.
I am guessing that there was probably nothing the VTS could have done with the COSCO BUSAN. It was passing under a bridge after all and maneuvering at the same time. At what point would they have stepped in? Surprisingly, no one has yet suggested remotely controlling these ships as they enter and leave.
In my article I call the notion of giving VTS final authority over a master's actions dangerous but conclude that VTS is well run in the US and provided it uses this authority only under extreme situations, history may find it to be a non-issue. Would you agree?
Other questions; 1) Is AIS and maritime technology up to the task of providing the information needed for VTS to over-rule a master's authority? 2) If so are there enough fail safes to assure AIS is secure, redundant and reliable enough to provide this data? 3) Are VTS officials going to board these ships or will the master's authority be over-ridden via VHF? 4) Who at VTS will have this authority? Will it be the watchstander, supervisor or should an experianced master mariner be stationed at VTS to approve the decision.
Bob Couttie
· 2 years ago
IMHO vessel control by VTS is inevitable, whether we like it or not. Indeed, it may be that crew will be taken off of ships entirely and they'll be sailed on instruments, once head offices can figure out who to blame when something goes wrong.
Technology alone, which is all VTS had going for it, isn't the answer. Fred Fry rails at idiot drivers blindly following their GPS, it happens at sea, too (ie. The Case Of The Wandering Monarch - a day and half navigating with a GPS that wasn't even connected to a satellite!)
"Good seamanship", with or without technology, is the way to go.
Having some familiarity with the workings of the the legislature of our cousins (And former owners of this benighted archipelago), obviously the Pelosi-Boxer laws have a way to go yet. The sort of knee-jerking voting that created the Patriot Act hopefully won't happen this time - it's not remotely on the same scale.
Yes, it does have some good points, the improvement of VTS capability gets an uptick, so does the idea that pilots should have laptop GPS displays.
I have to say, it didn't occur to me that in what claims itself it be the most technologically advanced nation on earth someone earning $500,000 a year wouldn't already have one.
Fred Fry
· 2 years ago
Before getting to VTS control, how about increased communication between vessels and VTS or at least Pilots and VTS. Surely, they must be a tool for the Pilot's 'toolbox'.
I would think that increasing VTS control will increase manning requirements at VTS stations. Are they ready for that? I know previously there were comments that some of the most qualified mariners are locked out of Pilot Associations, so here is someplace they can be useful. Then again, maybe they would be even more useful on the bridge as a second set of eyes for the pilot.
ACI
· 2 years ago
We are dealing with hot stuff here:
responsabilities - who is to blame when everything goes wrong. manning quality and cost - Am I the only one thinking that we're pulling the string way too much on this item? technology - how is it getting into and modifying this ancient and sometimes conservative business.
BB
· 2 years ago
Fred, I like your last idea.... a bridge team for the pilot.
captstash
· 2 years ago
There is much to learn yet about this incident, so it is far too soon to jump to any conclusions. But it is worth considering that many shipping companies put undue pressure on their masters, who in turn pass the pressure along to pilots to get vessels moved even in questionable conditions.
In hindsight, it would seem that after the radars failed anchoring the ship, rather than attempting to continue the transit would have been a better choice.
The fact that the Cosco Busan was apparently preparing to go to sea and cross the Pacific without a working radar is disconcerting to say the least.
Perhaps empowering / requiring harbor pilots to terminate transits where possible ( in this case for instance, the Busan could have been anchored in SF Anchorage #9) and notify the USCG when required equipment fails would be a far better and more efficacious solution. That would take the decision out of everyone's hands and improve safety.
But that would require the use of common sense.
Kurt
· 2 years ago
If we as a country are going to even think about VTS working like air traffic control, we would need to pick a port and work out a test plan. It will take some real research to figure out the best way to implement such a thing, how far to take it, and if it would work at all. Only then can we make rules that are going to help protect ports and vessels and make the situation worse.
Responding to the unmanned ship comment: Autonomous surface vehicles (ASV) are coming, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) are here. However, both are small and the operators knows that here is a reasonable chance that the vehicle might be destroyed one way or another. I don't think that unmanned cargo vessels will be here any time soon. Maritime operations is about managing the risk of economic activity.
My take is that we need better tools for pilots and the crew (which is my research area, so I am biased). Pilots should be bringing their own charting system with them every time. Even if it is not always used, that is just the smart way to do your job. These things are getting pretty cheap and the cost of getting on a bridge with gear you have trouble with is too great.
The first rule to make (instead of VTS tweaks) is to make a tested & working pilot plug and AIS a requirement for entering or getting underway in a port for larger vessels.
That would be my current take on where we are.
John
· 2 years ago
Kurt, great comment, thanks!
And... I just checked... we don't have a pilot port... at all.
Bob Couttie
· 2 years ago
The issue of VTS as traffic control is a fairly frequent feature of proposed 'solutions', check out the responses following the Norwegian Dream/Ever Decent collision in 1999.
I'd again bring up the Bridge Team Management/Bridge Resource Management issue, whih isn't ouched by the Pelosi-Boxer legislation as far as I can see. Such training must be mandatory for all pilots - in response to an earlier comment, there is lready a bridge team for the pilot already on the bridge but pilots don't make enough use of them, AND there should be similar training for VTS operators because when a vessel is in their area of responsibility, by extension they become part of that ship's bridge team.
All Comments
Maybe i'm lost in translation but what I infere with this new law is just a a matter of cleaning up responsabilities in the case of an accident, only for the media and the general public. Something like "It is not my fault, I told the master to slow down, and he kept on going, that's what happened".
Looks that you are not (your representatives and the general public) being too wise;
How many vessels have operated in the bay for how many years? How many oil spills?
(not a difficult answer will come)
What worries me more, I'm sorry to tell you, is not your country, but mine, where we copy your laws without thinking it, without considering your constrains, just because you are the US.
Thank you for mentioning me in one of your post,
John, it's only been a few weeks since the incident and already they propose law? You're too optimistic on this one.
Take the constant stream of stories out of the UK of drivers blindly following their GPS Navigators, doing the most insane maneuvers, simply because their GPS told them to 'turn now'. That is what this bill is encouraging; 'What happened?' 'We did what the VTS operator told us to do.'
Unfortunately, the only defense is probably to publicize the failings of VTS, and from what I have seen, there is no shortage of them.
I am guessing that there was probably nothing the VTS could have done with the COSCO BUSAN. It was passing under a bridge after all and maneuvering at the same time. At what point would they have stepped in? Surprisingly, no one has yet suggested remotely controlling these ships as they enter and leave.
I just posted a few questions to the Council of American Master Mariner's forum (http://mastermariner.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t...), what are *your* thoughts?
In my article I call the notion of giving VTS final authority over a master's actions dangerous but conclude that VTS is well run in the US and provided it uses this authority only under extreme situations, history may find it to be a non-issue. Would you agree?
Other questions;
1) Is AIS and maritime technology up to the task of providing the information needed for VTS to over-rule a master's authority?
2) If so are there enough fail safes to assure AIS is secure, redundant and reliable enough to provide this data?
3) Are VTS officials going to board these ships or will the master's authority be over-ridden via VHF?
4) Who at VTS will have this authority? Will it be the watchstander, supervisor or should an experianced master mariner be stationed at VTS to approve the decision.
Technology alone, which is all VTS had going for it, isn't the answer. Fred Fry rails at idiot drivers blindly following their GPS, it happens at sea, too (ie. The Case Of The Wandering Monarch - a day and half navigating with a GPS that wasn't even connected to a satellite!)
"Good seamanship", with or without technology, is the way to go.
Having some familiarity with the workings of the the legislature of our cousins (And former owners of this benighted archipelago), obviously the Pelosi-Boxer laws have a way to go yet. The sort of knee-jerking voting that created the Patriot Act hopefully won't happen this time - it's not remotely on the same scale.
Yes, it does have some good points, the improvement of VTS capability gets an uptick, so does the idea that pilots should have laptop GPS displays.
I have to say, it didn't occur to me that in what claims itself it be the most technologically advanced nation on earth someone earning $500,000 a year wouldn't already have one.
I would think that increasing VTS control will increase manning requirements at VTS stations. Are they ready for that? I know previously there were comments that some of the most qualified mariners are locked out of Pilot Associations, so here is someplace they can be useful. Then again, maybe they would be even more useful on the bridge as a second set of eyes for the pilot.
responsabilities - who is to blame when everything goes wrong.
manning quality and cost - Am I the only one thinking that we're pulling the string way too much on this item?
technology - how is it getting into and modifying this ancient and sometimes conservative business.
In hindsight, it would seem that after the radars failed anchoring the ship, rather than attempting to continue the transit would have been a better choice.
The fact that the Cosco Busan was apparently preparing to go to sea and cross the Pacific without a working radar is disconcerting to say the least.
Perhaps empowering / requiring harbor pilots to terminate transits where possible ( in this case for instance, the Busan could have been anchored in SF Anchorage #9) and notify the USCG when required equipment fails would be a far better and more efficacious solution. That would take the decision out of everyone's hands and improve safety.
But that would require the use of common sense.
Responding to the unmanned ship comment: Autonomous surface vehicles (ASV) are coming, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) are here. However, both are small and the operators knows that here is a reasonable chance that the vehicle might be destroyed one way or another. I don't think that unmanned cargo vessels will be here any time soon. Maritime operations is about managing the risk of economic activity.
My take is that we need better tools for pilots and the crew (which is my research area, so I am biased). Pilots should be bringing their own charting system with them every time. Even if it is not always used, that is just the smart way to do your job. These things are getting pretty cheap and the cost of getting on a bridge with gear you have trouble with is too great.
The first rule to make (instead of VTS tweaks) is to make a tested & working pilot plug and AIS a requirement for entering or getting underway in a port for larger vessels.
That would be my current take on where we are.
And... I just checked... we don't have a pilot port... at all.
I'd again bring up the Bridge Team Management/Bridge Resource Management issue, whih isn't ouched by the Pelosi-Boxer legislation as far as I can see. Such training must be mandatory for all pilots - in response to an earlier comment, there is lready a bridge team for the pilot already on the bridge but pilots don't make enough use of them, AND there should be similar training for VTS operators because when a vessel is in their area of responsibility, by extension they become part of that ship's bridge team.