A number of avoidable accidents of vessels controlled by State pilots has resulted in severe criticism of the State pilotage systems by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
Historically, there have been two pilotage systems, Federal and State. When the First Congress decided which powers and functions would be exercised by the Federal and State Governments, the authority to regulate pilotage remained a State function until such time as further federal legislation was passed. 46 USC 8501 contains the current wording of that decision.
State law requires a vessel under registry which includes all foreign vessels and all U. S. vessels on a foreign voyages, to take a State pilot by State law. Where no State pilot is required, federal law requires a pilot holding a Coast Guard pilot's license.
Until the late 1960's, where State laws required a federal license as a prerequisite to obtaining a State pilot license, the Coast Guard would take action against the federal license of a State pilot they thought was negligent. The theory was that because the State required a federal license, the pilot was also acting under the authority of his federal license when acting as a State pilot. However, Dewey Soriano, a Puget Sound pilot contested this theory claiming he was acting only under his State license when he was a State pilot. The Federal Court of Appeals agreed with him stating the Coast Guard lacked jurisdiction, Soriano v. U.S. 494 F2d 681 (1974). Ever since the Coast Guard has not successfully taken action against the federal license of an individual who was navigating a vessel as a State pilot.
Several years ago, Congress attempted to change this situation through a change in the law. The pilots' associations successfully fought this proposal claiming that it would have constituted impermissible federal interference in State matters. Their theory was more emotion than substantive since the change would only have effected their federal license, and States can amend their laws so as to not require a federal license for State pilots.
Now, a new player has entered the scene. The National Transportation Safety Board in the investigation of two recent accidents involving State pilotage, has called for the Coast Guard to examine all pilots regarding vessel maneuvering criteria.
The composition of State Pilot Commissions varies from State to State running from a commission of all pilots (Louisiana) to a composition of half pilots and half shipping interests (Washington and Oregon) to a composition with no pilots. Also, while most States require the commission to review all incidents, the investigation presented to the commission is often conducted and presented by a fellow pilot. The theory espoused by pilots is that no one is competent to investigate a pilot but another pilot.
Even if the pilot is at fault, the commission, because of its makeup, may not choose to take any remedial action.
In the civil action in which the pilot was appealing a State environmental fine for causing the spill of oil when the vessel he was piloting grounded, he stated that he "had no responsibility as a pilot". While this opinion is not shared by the majority of pilots, the lack of appropriate action by State commissions can only condone such an opinion.
The NTSB was very harsh in their opinion of the Louisiana commission stating "The apparent lack of knowledge of [the pilot's] accident history suggests that oversight by the State of Louisiana over the performance of its State pilots was ineffective or nonexistent".
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for This Issue