pilots

Secretary General O'Neill,
Judge Mensah,
Parlamentary Secretary Martens
Admiral Richardson
Dear Host,
Distinguished Guests,

it is a great privilege and honor for me to speak on the occasion of your first working session and to address the topic of "Pilots serving public interests". I would like to thank you for this interesting opportunity and for inviting me.
I would also like to thank the International Maritime Pilots' Association for having decided to meet in Germany for the first time.
According to the German law regarding the maritime pilot structure and system the pilot is the only one familiar with the locality and the official navigation advisor to the captain.
The institution and operation of the maritime pilot structure as well as the supervision over this structure is the responsibility of the Federal Government. The maritime pilots localities are routes and waters hat secure the provisions of standardized and permanent services of pilots. The requirements for this profession are the official licensing based on a specified education and training and experienced maritime time. Our law only acknowledges the legal status of a maritime pilot as self-employed and as a member of the maritime pilot's brotherhood which is an immediate corporation under public law. Furthermore, the maintenance and operation of the pilot installations, for example the pilots navigation ships and pilots stations are also regulated by law. Moreover, the binding rates and fees are also controlled and regulated by the Federal Government in order to ensure that the pilots do not make a profit and subsequently all vessels must be treated equally. Only through this regulation no discrimination of vessels can occur and free access to all harbours can be warranted.
The definition of a district pilot also specifies that "he must operate based on his special professional qualifications and in direct responsibility in the common interest of the shipping and in the public interest".
The primary responsibility of a pilot is to ensure that safety and facilitation of the shipping traffic to all involved. This involves the total shipping traffic in their district, the obligation for the protection of the environment and the defense in case of danger and hazards to people and objects. They are personally responsible for their actions and subsequently can be made liable for all they do.
Now you can say "typical German - everything is over-regulated".
My response is "not over-regulated but imperative".
The clearly legal defined responsibility for the public interest and general economic interest underlines and strengthens the pilots legal status towards the individual client.
I am sure you have all experienced the situation in which shipowners, charter companies and port managements or also captains have tried to put pressure on pilots, with priority of economic aspects to their vessels and not taking into consideration safety and security measurements, the facilitation of see traffic of all others involved and the protection of the environment. That is why the legal protection, the professional, disciplinary and economical independence of a pilot is of immense importance. Being obliged to the public interest does not mean being uneconomical. It indicates the absolute opposite. In particular the organization of pilots ensuring the permanent and on-call availability of rested pilots 24 hours, day and night, without any waiting time for vessels, equal treatment and handling of all ships, no matter if large or small, equal fee regulations, no matter, if dealing with a large ship company or individual owners without economic profit expectations for the highly qualified pilots can not be replaced by any other private system.
Based on this the safety standards in our districts, the accident rate is under one per mille, the punctuality of the ships is guaranteed and the interests and protection of the environment are taken into consideration. Specially, in our region where the tide plays a major role, punctuality without any delay is of great importance. Missing the tide can cause a delay of 8-10 hours and raising the cost for the ship.
Just imagine the economical loss if a captain insists of leaving at the end of the tide although the draught is too large or the arrival time could be too late. It does not take much imagination to realize that the ship could run aground and block the entire track.
And naturally the demand of the shipowners and charter companies for the pilots to be available just in time is justified. At this point I would like to mention that almost 400 years ago it were the honorable merchants that demanded from the Hamburg admiralty the first regulated pilot rules. Their intentions were to protect their property and freight from damage and harm done by "illegal and wild pilots" and wreckers. The authorities wanted to further and promote trade by ensuring safe access to the harbour in Hamburg and the captains could be sure of receiving adequate advise from someone familiar with the locality for a reasonable fee. Basically this system still is valid and applies today.
Dear ladies and gentlemen, however, the time has advanced. Vessels are becoming faster and faster, larger, technically more complicated and demanding. This rapid technical development entails maneuver techniques and navigation instruments. Therefore, pilots always have to have knowledge of the highest technical know-how and developments. Due to the fact that they have to take preventive measures in a dangerous situation they have to have management abilities, act in a superior manner, to be willing to enforce and make decisions and therefore pilots must have a pronounced sense of responsibility.
We have now reached a topic, where in my opinion Germany is not guiding nor should be an example for other countries. Whereas for decades a practical experience period of 6 years as captain and a technical college education was mandatory for pilots, this was changed in 1997 and the practical experience time was reduced to 2 years and in 1998 STCW-treaty was transferred to national law. Need lessly the patent as Master Deep Sea was eliminated in Germany and put in the same level with the patent Master European Trade although STCW did not demand this change. The observance of the IMO minimum education standards may be a significant progress in many countries. However, if the requirements and prerequisites are reduced, although the demands are constantly increasing this can definitely not be viewed as exemplary and you in your countries should focus on this issue and not use Germany as an example. In my opinion the same holds true for the discussion of using the English language as district language which is viewed by several countries as advanced. I do not see a progress nor advantage in this. Moreover, I fear that this could indirectly endanger the acceptance ability of the pilots. You better than any one else know that the IMO standard terminology (know as SMCP) is not always sufficient to react in the case of for example breakdown of the engine or technical navigation problems in a dangerous situation in order to prevent harm encountered to the vessel, cargo or environment. Therefore, it would be very sensible aside from the IMO minimum standards within the pilot districts to set clear priorities for the usage of the native language if both the communication partners are capable of this common language.
What an absurd situation to have to use and rely on a foreign language and not being allowed to use the common native language when dealing in and with a dangerous and complicated situation trying to ensure safety and at the same time dealing in the public interest.
I definitely do not want to maintain that different nations have different ways of using the English language and therefore a captain coming from India approaching a Russian harbour may be more difficult to understand - no we do not even have to go that far. I would like to raise the question how 4 British citizens talk to each other if one comes from northern Ireland, one from Scotland, the 3rd one from Wales and the 4th from the Isle of White, South England.
Now we have approached the question what would happen if the pilots would not serve the public interests but instead the pilot system would become more subject to the private sector. As you know this is currently being discussed in Europe under the catch-word "Port-package". Gentlemen - go against this, use all legal possibilities you can in your resistance. Try to get the support of the politicians in your countries and together convince your governments that the pilot system and structure should not be subject to the private sector. Presently there are cases in which the captain can bring proof of sufficient knowledge of the district and of the necessary attempts of entering according to the Pilot Exemption Certificate (PEC). This is a fact, however, no one can guarantee that the captain is also rested and not totally stressed due to several entering attempts within a short period of time.
Pilots serving shipowners are economically dependent and therefore obliged to the economical success of the employer.
Pilots that are involved in the logistical know-how of the container terminals could interfere in competitive trade advantages in respect to competitors and new cargo handling companies would automatically have no chance.
Pilots serving ship agents and agencies help only those who complain about high fees and only want to increase their profit on the back of the pilots. Do you think that competitive pilot systems would still guarantee free and non-discriminating access to the ports?
I think that this is impossible.
The large shipping companies would have their own pilots and therefore these ships would fall under a completely different cost calculation. Subsequently operators of smaller ships would have to pay obvious higher costs or are confronted with imperative waiting times because the constant on-call duty of pilots will evidently be more expensive.
Non-regulation, where it has been implemented, has resulted to these problems. Moreover, the stress factors, for example fatigue, have become a severe issue and problem with these pilots and the accident rate has increased enormously. Argentina and the Great Barrier-Reef with an increase in the accident rate of 400% is a frightening example for this.
This also shows that an additional opening to the private sector does not ensure the fulfillment of the nations responsibility to control the traffic safety and security, the warranty of free and non-discrimination access to the ports, the insurance of facilitation of the traffic, the protection of the environment and if necessary the prevention of economical damage.
Dear gentlemen, are you aware of the importance of your key function to the existing economy and to your national states? It is your knowledge, your know-how and they are your professional qualifications over which the state has to fulfill its responsibility. That is also why it should be of public interest and task of the states to endorse their efforts for the sufficient and qualified rising generation.
The lack of up-coming navigation officers world-wide has become very obvious.
Navigation officers must have an educational as well as financial prospect which should be so interesting to them, that without their availability and duties their countries would be dramatically affected. Call on the duties and responsibilities of the politicians in your states. You have every right to do so - but please do not forget that these politicians have only a limited knowledge of your profession. If you do not educate and inform them - they do not know about your problems. It is your responsibility to correct this situation. Inform them of your dismay and perplexity.
I am looking forward to the now following statements and to learn from your global experience.
Thank you for your attention.

Rede vom 29.07.02 im CCH, Hamburg, vor dem 16. Weltkongress der IMPA: Pilots serving public interests.