REVIEW OF TASPORTS MARINE PILOT TRAINING PACKAGE, 30 NOVEMBER, 2011 INVESTIGATION & REPORT TO MAST BY JOHN McCOY

Transcription

1 1 REVIEW OF TASPORTS MARINE PILOT TRAINING PACKAGE, 30 NOVEMBER, 2011 INVESTIGATION & REPORT TO MAST BY JOHN McCOY

2 2 CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY page 3 1. Background page The conduct of the review page Conclusions and Recommendations page 7 2 Terms of Reference of the review page 9 3 The scheme of regulation of pilotage page 12 4 Purpose of the Review and the central issue page 14 5 The suitability of the Marine Pilot training manual for applicants that come from a traditional Master Unlimited background. page 15 6 The suitability of the Marine Pilot Training manual for applicants that come from a non traditional Master unlimited background page 17 7 Whether the Tasports training program meets the requirements of the Regulations, Deed, Tasmanian Ports Corporation Marine Pilotage Code, and nationally agreed standards for pilotage training page Summary of conclusions regarding the questions on the TasPorts training manual posed by the Terms of Reference page 20 8 The Issue of RAN training and experience and the requirements of the Regulations page 21 9 Recommendations regarding factors to be taken into consideration by MAST in exercising discretions available under Regulation 8.1(a)(iii) and Regulation 94 page The lack of an STCW command qualification page The lack of experience at sea in commercial vessels or as a licensed pilot in STCW vessels. page Other Issues page Is MAST able to attach conditions to the approval of other qualifications under Regulation 8.1 (a) (iii) and exemption from the application of Regulation 8.1 (b) (i) &(ii) under Regulation 94? page An issue with check pilots associated with the lack of a command qualification page The process of appointment of the trainee pilot page 34

3 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Background In August 2011, TasPorts determined to appoint a trainee marine pilot for Hobart to commence training in the port in September. The trainee is currently undertaking the required trips with a licensed pilot. Pilots are licensed according to the prescribed requirements of Regulation 8.1 of the Marine and Safety (Pilotage and Navigation) Regulations These Regulations inter alia require an applicant for a pilot s licence to hold a command qualification as master allowing that applicant to command a vessel of any size throughout the world and have experience in a senior capacity aboard a commercial vessel or as a licensed pilot. These requirements appeared in the TasPorts advertisement calling for applications as well as in the position description In the event, the applicant appointed by TasPorts did not hold the qualifications nor possess the experience prescribed by Regulation 8.1 and nor conform to the requirements expressed in the position description or as advertised. The training and experience of the appointed trainee is confined to vessels of the Royal Australian Navy. He served as navigator aboard a number of naval vessels and as a pilot with the RAN master attendant, piloting visiting warships. He has no command qualification for commercial vessels, nor any service in commercial vessels, nor as a licensed pilot. However, Regulation 8.1(a)(iii) allows other qualifications and experience to be approved by MAST. In order for the trainee marine pilot to be licensed, MAST would need to exercise a discretion to approve his previous training and experience in terms of satisfying Regulation 8.1(a)(iii) and also exercise a further discretion available under Regulation 94 to waive the requirement for experience as a senior officer or licensed pilot required by Regulation 8.1(b)(i)&(ii). If MAST chose to exercise a discretion in this manner, the effect would be to waive the requirement for a command qualification and experience in commercial vessels Prior to making the appointment TasPorts contacted MAST in July for clarification about how MAST would interpret Regulation 8. for a person with Navy qualifications. In response, MAST supplied Tasports with a set of requirements as to how Navy personnel could be assessed. TasPorts apparently took this to mean that MAST had approved the training and experience of the trainee as satisfying the requirements of Regulation 8.1(a)(iii). Notwithstanding, MAST does not accept that the trainee s RAN training and experience has actually been approved but argues that Regulation 8 does no work until MAST actually receives an application for licensing from a person. No such application has yet been made by the trainee pilot Whilst MAST has the responsibility for administration of the Marine and Safety (Pilotage and Navigation) Regulations 2007, a number of functions specified in the Regulations have been delegated to TasPorts under a Deed of Agreement between MAST and TasPorts. The training of pilots is one of the delegated functions 1. TasPorts have also been 1 Schedule 2 of the TasPorts Pilotage Code, (Regulation 9)

4 4 delegated with receiving applications for licensing 2, the conduct of examinations 3, the ongoing training 4 and re-assessment of pilots 5. The effect of these delegated functions is to leave the training and licensing to TasPorts who are required to comply with relevant provisions of the Regulations, the Deed and the Code. MAST is the final gatekeeper issuing the licence and also exercises any necessary discretions. In September 2011 TasPorts issued a pilot training manual marked Edition 1.2. The training in this document was additional to the requirements of the Pilotage Code of June There had been a previous edition of this document which had been circulated to the two pilots licensed for Hobart and the review was informed that some amendment was made following comments received. It was TasPorts position that the training manual was designed for all pilots and not just for the trainee with only naval training and experience. Indeed, TasPorts averred that the naval trained entrant was equivalent to any entrant holding an unrestricted master s certificate in any case MAST appointed the reviewer in October 2011 under Terms of Reference appearing elsewhere in this report to review and report on TasPorts marine pilot training package in Edition 1.2 of the manual The purpose of the review in the Terms of Reference is to make an assessment of Tasports training manual taking into account how well this manual meets the regulatory requirements in Tasmania and addressing the training of all pilots including those that come from both a traditional Master unlimited background, and also from a non-traditional Master unlimited background. However, despite the emphasis on the TasPorts training manual, the central issue prompting this review is the appointment of a trainee pilot who does not possess the statutory qualifications prescribed in Regulation 8.1 of the Marine and Safety (Pilotage and Navigation) Regulations The reviewer was required to report on the following matters: The suitability of the Marine Pilot training for applicants that come from a traditional Master Unlimited background. The suitability of the Marine Pilot Training for applicants that come from a non traditional Master unlimited background Whether the Tasports training program meets the requirements of the Regulations, Deed, Tasmanian Ports Corporation Marine Pilotage Code, and nationally agreed standards for pilotage training Any recommendations that the reviewer considers appropriate as a result of the findings of the review Any other issues that the review considers pertinent, within the context of the review The trainee now appointed has significant and impressive naval training relevant to the task of pilotage. He has completed the long navigation course, held appointments as a navigator aboard HMA vessels and important shore postings. He is also qualified to act as a naval pilot, piloting visiting warships of foreign nations. Despite many applications from 2 Schedule 2 of the TasPorts Pilotage Code, (Regulation 7) 3 Ibid (Regulation 10) 4 Ibid (Regulation 13) 5 Ibid (Regulation 14)

5 5 applicants actually meeting the requirements of Regulation 8.1, and the position description, TasPorts considered the appointee to be the superior candidate notwithstanding that he did not possess the qualifications and experience specified in Regulation 8.1 this is noted by the review but unable to be further considered, being outside the Terms of Reference The reviewer was required to take into consideration relevant material contained in the National Marine Guidance Manual Guidelines for Marine Pilotage Standards in Australia of the NMSC and the ATC s National Standard Competencies for Trainee Marine Pilots. While neither of these documents are adopted in legislation they must be considered authoritative and persuasive. The Guidelines provide for threshold qualifications for appointment of pilot trainees and these include persons with naval training and experience and such additional competencies identified by AMSA as are required to achieve equivalence to an Australian Master Unlimited or an Australian Certificate of Competency for the size of vessel being piloted. No such assessment has yet been made by AMSA and it is the position of TasPorts that the current trainee requires no assessment of competencies and no further training. Similarly, Pilot Competencies provide for recognition of prior learning in the completion of required training (including naval training) but certainly do not substitute naval training for all of the required training. This matter is further addressed in the Conclusions and Recommendations The training package appearing in Edition 1.2 of the TasPorts training manual is generally assessed as being unsuitable for the training of pilots from both a traditional and non-traditional background. The qualifications and experience of the appointed trainee pilot neither comply with the Regulations nor the national standards and should be first assessed by AMSA to determine equivalence with a certificate of competency as master unrestricted before MAST gives the benefit of any exercise of any available discretion. At the very least there must be uncertainty as to the ability of the appointee to be trained to every relevant standard as a master and given that MAST has a protective function in terms of the Tasmanian public, this uncertainty should be translated into caution insofar as the exercise of any discretion is concerned This review recommends some evaluation by AMSA as to the equivalence of the trainee s RAN training and experience with that of a Master unrestricted. Of course, when considering pilotage issues the possession of a master s certificate is no guarantee that errors will not be made in the control of the navigation of a ship. After all, the master of the Lake Illawarra possessed a master s certificate and a pilotage exemption when the vessel collided with the Tasman Bridge on January 5, 1975 subsequently sinking with the death of 7 crew members and 5 people using the bridge at the time. But nor is naval training and experience a guarantee of navigational competence. The worst maritime disaster in Australia s peacetime history occurred when HMAS Voyager collided with HMAS Melbourne on February 10, 1964 resulting in the sinking of Voyager and the death of 82 of her crew The conduct of the review The reviewer was required by the terms of reference to engage with a number of parties. These parties included officers of TasPorts, TasPorts Pilots, the Australasian Marine Pilots 6 In fairness, references to the Voyager incident and the Lake Illawarra incident are meant to be illustrative anecdotes and not necessarily evidence of navigational incompetence. It is much more likely that the incidents are evidence of systemic error in relation to effective error management.

6 6 Institute (AMPI), the Australian Marine Officers Union (AMOU), the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and the Australian Maritime College (AMC). The reviewer engaged with all these parties in accordance with the Terms of Reference. In addition, the reviewer also spoke to the trainee pilot, at the request of TasPorts The review was also informed by a range of documentation including various correspondence supplied by MAST and submissions from interested parties. However, the report which follows is the report of the reviewer alone. Whilst reference is made in the report to certain information provided in documents and at meetings with the parties, the accuracy of the material referenced depends on the record kept by the reviewer. The opinions, conclusions and recommendations which are contained in this report are entirely those of the reviewer who records his appreciation for the co-operation by the various parties.

7 7 1.3 Conclusions and Recommendations The following conclusions address the Terms of Reference of the review and also appear in the body of the report with reasons: TasPorts training manual appears to provide for a one size fits all approach to the training of pilots and therefore does not comply with the Deed and the Code which requires a tailored and structured approach to training to take into account the previous experience, training and needs of the trainee determined in conjunction with the check pilot. More generally, it is concluded that Tasmanian pilots have not been sufficiently involved with the development of the TasPorts training manual. The TasPorts training manual appears far from useful to pilot trainees who are qualified at the master unrestricted level and quite unsuitable to the training of applicants coming from a non-traditional maritime background. Neither pilots nor their representative nor industrial organisations have been effectively consulted as to the content of the TasPorts training manual as required by the Deed, the Code and Resolution 960 of IMO. The TasPorts training manual can be considered, at best, no more than a work in progress and much more consultation is required with Tasmanian licensed pilot and their professional and industrial organisations. to develop it into an effective or useful training document. In its present form the training manual is ineffective and of limited utility for the training of applicants coming from a traditional master unlimited background and quite unsuitable for applicants coming from a non-traditional Master unlimited background. The consultative process engaged in by TasPorts engendered a climate of suspicion from Tasmanian licensed pilots, AMPI and AMOU and failed to involve the pilots, AMPI or AMOU This meant that an optimal outcome in terms of training and selection of pilots became unachievable. Whilst the TasPorts training manual appeared to meet the requirements of the Regulations it did not meet the requirements of the Deed, the Code and the nationally agreed standards for pilotage training, specifically standards expressed in NMSC s Guidelines for Marine Pilotage Standards in Australia and ATC s National Standard on Pilot Competencies. The person currently under training with TasPorts does not possess an appropriate certificate of competency or a pilot s licence and nor does he have the required experience in commercial vessels. Moreover, the person has little or no experience in commercial vessels which are subject to the STCW Convention. The person currently under training has no command qualification for, nor any real experience in, commercial vessels subject to the STCW Convention. In order to be licensed MAST would need to approve his RAN qualifications and experience as meeting the requirements of Regulation 8.1 (a) (iii) and exercise a general discretion to exempt him from the requirements of Regulation 8.1(b). In effect, the exercise of a

8 8 favourable discretion and approval by MAST would mean that the need for a command qualification and experience in commercial vessels has been totally waived. Regulation 8.1 (a)(iii) permits an applicant to have other approved experience and qualifications. The discretion to approve available to MAST under this Regulation is not unconfined but must be exercised by MAST having regard to the functions and powers conferred by the Act. MAST exercises a protective jurisdiction insofar as the Tasmanian public is concerned and must therefore exercise the discretion in a manner that does not derogate from existing safety standards but rather preserves them. In order to preserve existing safety standards, the discretion can only be properly exercised to achieve a safety outcome and competencies equivalent to those evidenced by the certificates of competency or a pilot s licence and it must follow that the phrase other approved experience and qualifications takes colour from the previous requirements which require the possession of a master s certificate. Before MAST considers the exercise of any discretion it should consider the qualifications required by the Guidelines and require the applicant to submit his qualifications to AMSA in order to have such additional competencies identified by AMSA as are required to achieve equivalence to an Australian Master Unlimited. There is considerable uncertainty as to the equivalence of the qualification and experience of the current trainee pilot to the qualifications prescribed by Regulation Therefore the safest course for MAST is to adopt a policy of application of the national pilotage standards to resolve any uncertainty present in the exercise of any discretion in this matter or any similar matters in future. No need exists to exercise any discretion solely on the grounds that there was a shortage of qualified applicants at the time the current trainee was appointed. Having recommended that MAST should require the trainee pilot to submit his qualifications to AMSA in order to have such additional competencies identified by AMSA, it is further recommended, noting the trainee does not comply with the sea service requirements of Regulation 8.1(b,) that any request for exemption under Regulation 94 should not be finally determined until AMSA has assessed those additional competencies as are required to achieve equivalence to an Australian Master Unlimited. TasPorts have not yet made the safety case for a favourable exercise of discretion and MAST may attach conditions to its exercise including requiring the trainee to have AMSA assess competencies in terms of the Guidelines. Involving the pilots and their organisations in proposed changes to selection, qualification and training of pilots from the outset is essential in implementing safe and effective change and it is a recommendation of this review that it takes place. Lack of transparency with this process of appointment of the pilot trainee is an issue which has appeared to promote suspicion and resentment inhibiting any effective change and it is recommended that MAST release this report to the parties taking part in the review as soon as is practicable.

9 9 2 Terms of Reference of the review (as determined by MAST) The Marine and Safety (Pilotage and Navigation) Regulations 2007 regulate pilotage and navigation within port areas. Under the Deed of Agreement between MAST, Tasports and the Crown, Tasports shall perform the following functions under the regulations; Receive applications for pilots licences (Reg 7), Train pilots (Reg 9), Conduct examinations (Reg 10), Ongoing training of pilots (Reg 13), Reassessment of pilots (Reg 14) 1.1 Regulation 8 sets out the eligibility requirements for a pilot s licence as follows; (1) An applicant for a pilot's licence (a) must (i) hold a valid certificate of competency as an Australian Master Class I issued by AMSA; or (ii) hold a valid certificate, equivalent to the one specified in subparagraph (i), issued by an approved competent authority that is party to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping of Seafarers 1995; or (iii) have other approved experience and qualifications;... MAST assesses applications for pilot s licence received from Tasports and can grant or refuse applications under Regulation 12. Any trainee pilot employed by Tasports, including the holder of a Master Class 1 (currently referred to as a Master Unlimited) is required to undertake specific training and pilotage operations under the supervision of a senior pilot before applying to MAST for a pilot s licence. Before MAST grants a pilot s licence, supporting documentation provided by Tasports is assessed. This includes recommendations from senior pilots who have supervised the applicant undertaking pilotage operations. ISSUES MAST was contacted by Tasports in July for clarification about how MAST would interpret Regulation 8. for a person with Navy qualifications. This regulation does not refer to equivalence but other approved experience and qualifications. In interpreting this regulation MAST considered the current AMSA requirements for coastal pilotage and discussed the situation with other jurisdictions. MAST then supplied Tasports with a set of requirements as to how Navy personnel could be assessed. In late July Tasports provided MAST with some information about a potential applicant with Navy qualifications. MAST informed Tasports that the information they supplied indicated the applicant could meet these requirements, subject to undertaking the necessary training.

10 10 A pilot s licence is not granted by MAST until evidence is provided that the pilot has undertaken all the necessary training, assessments and other requirements. The Tasports Marine Pilotage Code identifies that the training program for a trainee pilot is devised taking into consideration their previous qualifications and experience. A new trainee pilot that does not come from a traditional Master Unlimited background therefore requires a training program to ensure a consistent standard is met prior to the issuing of any pilot s licence. Significant work has been undertaken in this area by other parties, including the National Marine Safety Committee (NMSC) that has produced a National Standard - Competencies for Trainee Marine Pilots. Marine pilots have historically been drawn from a pool of experienced master mariners, usually being former Masters. However, this source of potential marine pilots has significantly reduced and is predicted to further reduce in the coming years. Hence there was a need to develop an alternate pathway because of the diminishing number of qualified mariners. The Standard specifies minimum level of qualifications to be attained and other conditions to be satisfied in order to obtain Statement of Program Completion Trainee Marine Pilot. This standard has not been legislated for in any jurisdiction as there is some outstanding work required to ensure operational effectiveness. Tasports has been advised that this work be considered when finalising the Marine Pilot Training Manual. Due to the technical nature of marine pilotage, MAST considers it appropriate to have an external expert review this manual when completed. Recommendations from the external expert will be considered when MAST assesses a formal application for a pilot s licence. Given the background, the application if/when received will be considered by the MAST Board. PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW The purpose of the review is to make an assessment of Tasports training manual. This review is to take into account how well this manual meets the regulatory requirements in Tasmania. The review of Tasports training manual should address training of all pilots including that come from a traditional Master unlimited background, and those who do not come from a traditional Master unlimited background. In undertaking this review the following documentation should be taken into consideration; Marine and Safety (Pilotage and Navigation) Regulations 2007 Deed of agreement between MAST, the Crown and Tasports Tasmanian Ports Corporation Marine Pilotage Code National Marine Guidance Manual Guidelines for Marine Pilotage Standards in Australia ATC National Standard Competencies for Trainee Marine Pilots Tasmanian Ports Corporation Marine Pilot Training edition 1.2

11 11 INTERACTION WITH THIRD PARTIES MAST requests that the reviewer engages with the following parties (listed with suggested contacts) as part of the review; Tasports management David Phillips Charles Black Peter Martin Senior Pilots employed by Tasports Australian Marine Pilots Institute (AMPI) Peter Liley Australian Marine Officers Union (AMOU) Michael Fleming AMSA/AMC Any other authority that the reviewer considers appropriate REPORT FROM THE REVIEW MAST requires the reviewer to provide a written report that details the findings the review of Tasports Marine Pilot Training manual. This report should include the following information; The suitability of the Marine Pilot training for applicants that come from a traditional Master Unlimited background. The suitability of the Marine Pilot Training for applicants that come from a non traditional Master unlimited background Whether the Tasports training program meets the requirements of the Regulations, Deed, Tasmanian Ports Corporation Marine Pilotage Code, and nationally agreed standards for pilotage training Any recommendations that the reviewer considers appropriate as a result of the findings of the review Any other issues that the review considers pertinent, within the context of the review

12 12 3 The scheme of regulation of pilotage 3.1 MAST inter alia has the function to ensure the safe operation of vessels 7 and may engage a port company to perform any of the functions of the Authority on any terms and conditions the Authority considers appropriate 8 - MAST has engaged Tasports by a deed of agreement [the Deed] to perform certain functions in the pilotage areas of the State, including functions connected with the provision and regulation of pilotage services 9. The Deed authorises Tasports to perform a range of functions 10 contained within the Marine and Safety (Pilots and Navigation) Regulations 2007 and includes certain functions associated with the provision and regulation of pilotage services 11. Tasports is required by the Deed 12 to ensure that its employees carry out the functions authorised under Schedule 2 of the Deed in the primary pilotage areas referred to in Schedule Under the Deed, Tasports is required to prepare a Pilotage Code setting out the requirements for operational certification as a pilot and as a pilot exempt master 14 and ensure that pilots are trained in accordance with that Code 15 the Code must comply with the Regulations. 16 The current Tasports Marine Pilotage Code is a document dated June It follows that pilotage operations and services are required to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations, the Deed and the Code. The usual model of regulation by government differentiates between an Operator and a Regulator and provides for the Regulator to administer standards determined in accordance with government policy and legislation whilst having an input into the development of those standards. An Operator, the subject of the appropriate legislation, is monitored and audited to ensure compliance with statutory standards. In Tasmania, so far as regulation of pilotage is concerned, TasPorts is the Operator and MAST is the Regulator. Yet there is some distortion and blurring of the functions of a Regulator and Operator since TasPorts is delegated by Deed with a number of functions which would generally be described as regulatory in nature. This includes a 7 Marine and Safety Authority Act 1997, s(6) (1)(a) 8 Ibid, s19 (1A) 9 Deed between the Marine and Safety Authority of Tasmania and Tasports Corporation P/L and the Crown in the right of the State of Tasmania dated 20 January, 2009, Clause 2 (The Deed) 10 Ibid, Schedule 2 of the deed 11 Ibid that is: Licensing of Pilots (regulations 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14); Pilotage Exemption Certificates (Regulations 22 and 26); Enforcement of Pilotage Regulations (Regulations 17, 19 and 31); Enforcement of Pilotage Exemption Regulations (Regulations 32, 33 and 37); Schedule 2 of the deed also provides for general enforcement provisions in pilotage areas 12 Schedule 1 - this schedule also contains certain standards for the performance of the authorised functions 13 The Primary Ports contained in Schedule 3 are the ports of Hobart, Launceston, Devonport, Burnie, Grassy, Spring Bay, Port Latta and Lady Barron. Schedule 3 also lists Secondary Ports as being Coles Bay, Narracoopa, Port Arthur, Port Davey, Stanley and Strahan Regulations 4 and 5 of the Marine and Safety (Pilotage and Navigation) Regulations apply the whole of Part 2 to all the ports listed in Schedule 3 of the deed without apparently differentiating between Primary and Secondary ports. However, Schedule 1 of the deed requires that Tasports maintain the capability of providing [pilotage] service throughout a 24 hour period on an on-call basis throughout the year 14 Schedule 1, para, Ibid para, Ibid, para 4.3

13 13 number of functions associated with pilotage. These functions include training where TasPorts is required to develop a Code. In addition TasPorts receives applications for licensing, conducts examinations and provides the on-going training and the re-assessment of pilots. As previously stated, the effect of these delegated functions is to leave the training and licensing to TasPorts who are required to comply with relevant provisions of the Regulations, the Deed and the Code. Compliance with the legislation, the Deed and the Code is ensured through audit and annual audits by MAST take place. So far as the pilotage function is concerned, MAST is engaged as the final gatekeeper when the licence is to be issued and after all other functions have been performed. MAST is also engaged if an application does not comply with all the requirements of the Regulations and some discretionary decision is required The review makes no criticism of the machinery for ensuring that pilotage standards in Tasmania are developed through a system of Regulations, a Deed of Agreement and a Pilotage Code since any examination of these matters is not within the terms of reference. Notwithstanding, the system under which pilotage is regulated is highly relevant to the issues that the review is required to consider.

14 14 4 Purpose of the Review and the central issue 4.1 The purpose of the review in the Terms of Reference is to make an assessment of Tasports training manual taking into account how well this manual meets the regulatory requirements in Tasmania 17 and addressing the training of all pilots including those that come from both a traditional Master unlimited background, and also from a non-traditional Master unlimited background Nevertheless, despite the emphasis on the TasPorts training manual, the central issue prompting this review is the appointment of trainee pilot who does not possess the statutory qualifications prescribed in Regulation 8.1 of the Marine and Safety (Pilotage and Navigation) Regulations But Regulation 8.1 (a) (iii) appears to allow MAST a discretion to approve experience and qualifications other than those prescribed by Regulation 8.1 (a) (i)&(ii) and the major issue for this review is to provide advice and recommendations on how this discretion is to be properly exercised having regard to MAST s safety function under its Act Noting the central issue prompting the review, this report first considers the stated purpose of the review as required by the Terms of Reference. That is to say, the training manual provided by TasPorts for the purpose of training pilot trainees coming from both a traditional and non-traditional Master unlimited background. 4.4 The, version of the manual to be now considered is designated Edition 1.2 of September There was a previous Edition 1 also of September 2011 it has been contended that this earlier edition appears to be squarely aimed at providing appropriate training for a marine pilot trainee coming from a non-traditional background and, more specifically from a naval background 20. The reviewer has examined Edition 1 and certainly the Part 1 Theory Section of this edition contains prescription for training that would not be required for a trainee pilot coming from a traditional background. Edition 1 was forwarded by TasPorts to Hobart licensed pilots for comment and following receipt of some comment some amendment of Edition 1 took place, apparently principally aimed at removing the imputation that the training was being developed in order to appoint a naval officer 21. This amendment resulted in Edition 1.2 being released and it was said by TasPorts that the training contained in the manual is training that is intended to be common to applicants that come both from a traditional Master Unlimited background and a non traditional background 22. Notwithstanding TasPorts contention that the training contained in Edition 1.2 of the manual is intended to apply to all trainee marine pilots, this report addresses both issues separately as is required by the terms of reference.. 17 See Terms of Reference 18 ibid 19 S6(1)(a) Marine and Safety Authority Act Contended by persons providing information to the review 21 Contended by persons providing information to the review and substantially confirmed by TasPorts at a meeting of 11 November 22 As expressed at a meeting of 11 November 2011

15 15 5 The suitability of the Marine Pilot training manual for applicants that come from a traditional Master Unlimited background. 5.1 The Regulations require the establishment of training requirements for persons applying for a pilot s licence and for those requirements to take into account certain matters. The prescribed requirements are very general and not exclusive and it is considered that the training described in the Manual is compliant with the Regulations However, the same cannot be said about compliance by the Manual with all the requirements of the Deed and TasPorts Marine Pilotage Code. The Deed requires TasPorts to prepare a Code setting out the requirements for operational certification as a pilot 24 and also training pilots in accordance with the requirements of the Code 25. The Deed also requires That TasPorts ensure pilots will continue to be involved with training as required by the Pilotage Code 26. Part 7 of the Code inter alia requires that a pilot training programme be structured under the guidance of a Check Pilot to meet the needs of each New Pilot taking into account experience, previous training etc. and also that the areas of training and development [be] addressed in a structured program. The Manual does not appear to provide for this but rather for a one size fits all approach to this extent, at least, the Manual does not appear to comply with the Deed and the Code. 5.3 The Training Manual consists of 3 sections. The first section is entitled PILOT COMPETENCIES, the second PART 1-THEORY and the third PART 2 PRACTICAL. The content of the Manual appears to represent most of the content of section 11 (Pilot Competencies) and section 12 (training) of the Guidelines 27 but it does not appear to require or provide the specialised knowledge in the subjects required by Annex B. 28. The standard of knowledge and the experience required in these subjects is evidenced by the possession of a qualification in accordance with Clause Regulation 9, Marine and Safety (Pilotage and Navigation( Regulations Paragraph 4.3 of Schedule 1 of the Deed 25 Paragraph 4.4 of Schedule 1 of the Deed 26 Paragraph 4.5 of Schedule 1 of the Deed 27 GUIDELINES FOR MARINE PILOTAGE STANDARDS IN AUSTRALIA, Edition 2, November 2008, National Maritime safety Committee (NMSC)(The Guidelines) 28 Annex B of the Guidelines requires a pilot to possess the following specialised knowledge of subjects relating to pilotage in order to competently conduct the vessel: Navigation; Naval Architecture; Radio & Electronic Navaids; Marine Engineering; Meteorology; Seamanship; Hydrostatics; Ship Handling and Manoeuvring; Hydrodynamics; and Shipboard Management Systems. 29 Section 10.2 of the Guidelines requires a pilot to possess one of the following qualifications as a pre-requisite to licensing: A valid Certificate of Competency as an Australian Master Unlimited or a valid Australian Certificate of Competency for the size of vessel being piloted; a Certificate of Recognition issued by AMSA in relation to an international qualification equivalent to an Australian Master Unlimited; Royal Australian Navy qualifications and such additional competencies identified by AMSA as are required to achieve equivalence to an Australian Master Unlimited or an Australian Certificate of Competency for the size of vessel being piloted; a pilot s licence issued by the relevant Authority of a flag State that is a party to the International Convention of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping of Seafarers, 1995; a valid pilot s licence issued in another Australian jurisdiction; or evidence of competencies equivalent to a) to e) and acceptable to the Authority and port administration.

16 16 Nor does the manual appear to pick up the content of the National Standard on Pilot Competencies which requires candidates who wish to become a trainee marine pilot to...demonstrate that they are capable of applying specific skills and knowledge for the safe pilotage of vessels gained by obtaining relevant qualifications and undergoing approved training programs 30 such candidates will be deemed to satisfy this requirement if they comply with certain specified criteria 31. Despite the Manual stating that it is cognisant with the source material of the National Competencies 32 this does not appear to be reflected in the actual document. 5.4 PART 1-THEORY aims to detail the minimum knowledge to be gleaned through research and approach to operators with expertise in the respective subjects 33. Assessment of pilot trainees is made by TasPorts Marine Services Manager. However, in the opinion of the reviewer most of PART 1 is redundant insofar as trainees with a traditional background are concerned. Such trainees will have covered almost all the material at a much higher level with a formal course of study and assessed by formal examinations at an RTO 34 and an oral examination of AMSA 35. A certificate of competency as Master attests to their competency and knowledge of most of PART 1. Moreover, marine pilot trainees with this qualification comply with the training, competencies and threshold licensing qualification specified in the national standards contained in the Guidelines 36 and the National Competencies Whilst pilots who are qualified at the master unrestricted level may not be offended by the content of the manual, it appears far from useful. It also appears that neither serving pilots nor their professional organisations have been effectively consulted as to its content. To the reviewer much of the content appears irrelevant to the business of training a pilot. At best, it is considered that the document is little more than a work in progress and it needs much more development to become a useful training document. The suitability of the Marine Pilot Training manual for applicants that come from a non traditional Master unlimited background 6.1 Most of the conclusions of the previous section also apply to the training specified in the manual of applicants coming from a non traditional Master unlimited background. However, in this case, any gaps or omissions identified in the previous section are of much greater significance. 6.2 Reference has previously been made to the failure of the training manual to make provision for a structured pilot training programme that takes into account an individual s previous training and experience. In the instant case, the trainee pilot does not possess the threshold qualification for licensing required by section 10.2 of the Guidelines. While his experience as a naval officer and a naval pilot undoubtedly fulfils a number of the specialised 30 Competencies for Trainee Marine Pilots, November 2010, Australian Transport Council (ATC)(Pilot Competencies) section Ibid, section 2.3 refers to the content of section 3 and Annexes A and B 32 Page 2 TasPorts Manual 33 Page 8, ibid 34 Registered Training Organisation 35 Australian Maritime Safety Authority 36 GUIDELINES FOR MARINE PILOTAGE STANDARDS IN AUSTRALIA, Edition 2, November 2008, National Maritime Safety Committee (NMSC) (The Guidelines) 37 National Standard on Pilot Competencies

17 17 knowledge subjects required by Annex B of the Guidelines, in the absence of the qualification required by section 10.2 there is by no means any evidence to show that he possesses sufficient knowledge at the required standard in all of them. For example, there may be significant gaps in the knowledge of Naval Architecture; Radio & Electronic Navaids; Marine Engineering; Meteorology; Hydrostatics; Hydrodynamics; and Shipboard Management Systems. The standard of knowledge and the experience required in these subjects is evidenced by the possession of a qualification in accordance with Clause 10.2 of Annex B of the Guidelines. In addition, the manual does not appear to observe the requirements in Annexes A and B of Part 3 of the National Standard on Pilot Competencies Whilst section 3.5 of the Standard allows for recognition of prior learning of naval officers and others, it certainly does not allow this prior learning to substitute for all the learning required by Annex A and B of the Standard. Accordingly, it is a conclusion of this review that in its present form the training manual is unsuitable for applicants coming from a nontraditional Master unlimited background The conclusion of the reviewer expressed in the previous paragraph is certainly not shared by TasPorts nor the trainee marine pilot himself. TasPorts are firmly of the view that the trainee pilot is in exactly the same position with respect to skills, competencies and training as any other trainee pilot drawn from a traditional master unlimited background 39. It has previously been stated in this report that TasPorts do not believe that the training manual is particular to this trainee but in fact a generic training document for all trainees 40. Indeed, TasPorts expressed the view that the trainee requires no further training other than that provided by the manual and the Code 41. This view is based on TasPorts appreciation of the previous training and experience of the trainee as a RAN navigator and pilot 42. TasPorts views are completely shared by the trainee pilot 43. These opinions of TasPorts and the trainee pilot are not shared by Tasmanian licensed pilots 44, the Australian Marine Pilots Institute (AMPI) 45 and the Australian Maritime Officers Union 9AMOU) 46. These persons and bodies believe that the TasPorts training manual is unfit for purpose and at the very least the trainee pilot should have his qualifications and experience assessed by AMSA in terms of equivalence to an Australian unrestricted master s certificate of competency and in accordance with section 10.2 (c) of the National Guidelines. 6.4 In considering the opposing views of the Tasmanian pilots, the AMOU and AMPI to those of TasPorts, it may be of some assistance to MAST to consider the view of IMO 47 in 38 Whilst the reviewer has largely relied on the Guidelines incoming to this conclusion, it is also supported by the experience of the reviewer as both a mariner and chairman and CEO of a mainland marine safety and pilotage authority for some 15 years. 39 As expressed at a meeting of 11 November ibid 41 ibid 42 ibid 43 As expressed at a meeting of 14 November2011 and subsequent correspondence 44 As expressed in previous correspondence and at a meeting of 14 November As expressed in previous correspondence and at a meeting of 3 November As expressed in previous correspondence and at a meeting of 28 November International Maritime Organisation the agency of the United nations responsible for all maritime safety conventions

18 18 relation to the matter of pilot training. IMO resolution 960 goes directly to the question of pilot training with particular reference to the training of harbour pilots. 6.5 Resolution 960 leaves the issue of appropriate pilot training to the national pilotage authority saying :The assessment of the experience, qualifications and suitability of an applicant for certification or licensing, as a pilot, is the responsibility of each competent pilotage authority 48 [and]the competent pilotage authority in co-operation with the national and local pilots associations should establish the entry requirements and develop the standards for.obtaining a certificate or licence in order to perform pilotage services within the area under its jurisdiction enforce the maintenance of developed standards specify whatever prerequisites, experience or examinations are necessary to ensure that applicants for certification or licensing as pilots are properly trained and qualified It is clear that IMO believes that the assessment of the experience, qualifications and suitability of an applicant for certification or licensing, as a pilot, is the responsibility of each competent pilotage authority. Moreover, the competent pilotage authority should with the national and local pilots associations. establish the entry requirements and develop the standards for.obtaining a certificate or licence in order to perform pilotage services. In the case of Tasmania, the competent pilotage authority is MAST, whatever the functions MAST may have delegated to TasPorts. It is also clear that the TasPorts pilot training manual is a standard for obtaining a certificate or licence in order to perform pilotage services. What is less clear is whether this standard has been developed with the local and national pilots association as required by Resolution 960. From the documentation provided to the reviewer and information subsequently provided at meetings and s it appears that the standard was developed by TasPorts and then forwarded for comment to the two pilots licensed for Hobart, AMOU and AMPI. To the reviewer it appeared to be something of a fait accompli. It certainly did not appear to be developed in conjunction with the national and local pilots associations in accordance with Resolution 960. Indeed at a meeting TasPorts officers were unaware of Resolution 960 and admitted as much It has previously been concluded that the training now proposed by TasPorts does not comply with the Deed or the Code in that neither the pilots nor the check pilot have been sufficiently involved. Nor have Tasports appeared to pay any attention to Resolution 960 which requires the establishment of entry requirements and the development of standards for obtaining a pilot s licence to be developed with the involvement of pilots and their organisations. Indeed as previously stated, TasPorts were unaware of the existence of Resolution 960. So far as ANMI and AMOU were concerned those pilots organisations were presented with edition 1.2 of Tasports training manual and asked for comments. Predictably the comments were adverse. From correspondence TasPorts decided to proceed with the training prescribed in Edition 1.2 on the basis that AMPI was not prepared to offer more detailed advice Resolution 960 clearly envisages that the competent authority and pilot organisations should be jointly involved in the development of standards and training. Development of standards in-house and then seeking comments from pilots and pilot organisations does not 48 IMO Resolution 960 Para Ibid para As expressed at a meeting of 11 November From correspondence to MAST

19 19 appear to be involving the pilot organisations in the development of standards. In the opinion of the review, if TasPorts wished to develop alternative training and entry requirements, it would have been preferable if these standards had been canvassed with pilots and pilot organisations prior to the appointment of a trainee pilot who did not possess the advertised or statutory qualifications. The consultative process engaged in by TasPorts engendered a climate of suspicion from Tasmanian licensed pilots, AMPI and AMOU. In the opinion of the reviewer, the failure to properly involve the pilots, AMPI or AMOU meant that an optimal outcome in terms of training and selection of pilots became unachievable.

20 20 7 Whether the Tasports training program meets the requirements of the Regulations, Deed, Tasmanian Ports Corporation Marine Pilotage Code, and nationally agreed standards for pilotage training 7.1 Summary of conclusions regarding the questions on the TasPorts training manual posed by the Terms of Reference For the reasons expressed in the previous 2 sections the reviewer concludes that the training programme as expressed in the TasPorts training manual: Appears to meet the requirements of Regulation 9 insofar as pilot training is concerned. Does not appear to meet a requirement of the Deed, specifically paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of Schedule 1 of the Deed. Does not appear to meet all the requirements of the Code, specifically Part 7. Does not appear to meet the requirements of nationally agreed standards for pilotage training, specifically standards expressed in NMSC s Guidelines for Marine Pilotage Standards in Australia and ATC s National Standard on Pilot Competencies.

21 21 8 The Issue of RAN training and experience and the requirements of the Regulations 8.1 Regulation 8.1 (a)inter alia requires an applicant for a pilot s licence to: (i) hold a valid certificate of competency as an Australian Master Class I issued by AMSA; or (ii) hold a valid certificate, equivalent to the one specified in subparagraph (i), issued by an approved competent authority that is party to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping of Seafarers 1995; or (iii) have other approved experience and qualifications; and (b) (i) for at least 12 months immediately before lodging the application, have served in a capacity of not less than first mate on a vessel required to carry at least 2 mates; or (ii) hold a pilot's licence issued by an approved competent authority that is party to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping of Seafarers 1995 and, for at least 12 months immediately before lodging the application, have been actively engaged in piloting; The above requirements of Regulation 8.1 appear to accord substantially with the National Guidelines of NMSC 52. Relevantly, these Guidelines provide that a pilot s licence should not be issued unless an applicant holds: a) a valid Certificate of Competency as an Australian Master Unlimited or a valid Australian Certificate of Competency for the size of vessel being piloted; b) a Certificate of Recognition issued by AMSA in relation to an international qualification equivalent to a); c) Royal Australian Navy qualifications and such additional competencies identified by AMSA as are required to achieve equivalence to an Australian Master Unlimited or an Australian Certificate of Competency for the size of vessel being piloted; d) a pilots licence issued by the relevant Authority of a flag State that is a party to the International Convention of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping of Seafarers, 1995; e) a valid pilots licence issued in another Australian jurisdiction; or f) evidence of competencies equivalent to a) to e) and acceptable to the Authority and port administration. 52 Specifically para 10.2 of the GUIDELINES FOR MARINE PILOTAGE STANDARDS IN AUSTRALIA, Edition 2, November 2008, National Maritime Safety Committee (NMSC) (The Guidelines)