Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T14:33:19.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘The Master is Responsible’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2010

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Much is being done to ease the burden on the Master approaching ports, and lane separation is the main thing. It would appear that the next logical step would be to penalize Masters who do not conform to the laid down traffic pattern.

It may be argued that the imposition of a penalty will be adding to the danger of a congested port approach, inasmuch as the Master will be worrying about the consequence of a wrong decision; such worrying may tend to cloud judgment.

However all Masters understand the correct ‘port approach’ technique and that therefore all other vessels will comply with such rules. A case for the imposition of a penalty is shown by the marked reluctance of some Masters to follow the lane patterns. I am speaking from experience when I say that I have seen vessels in the approaches to New York, Delaware River and San Francisco where charts show plainly approach and departure routes, deliberately steaming the wrong way in the laid down routes. It would appear that deliberate flaunting of safety features needs penalization of the person responsible, i.e. the Master.

However, before legislation can be enacted for such a penalty, it will be necessary for legislation to be enacted whereby strict conformance to the laws of approach and departure from a port is law, and not, as at present, recommended. While these routes are only recommended some Masters will still ‘corner cut’.

Type
Forum
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1969