Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation M-93-034
Details
Synopsis: ON AUGUST 7, 1992, THE UNITED KINGDOM PASSENGER VESSEL RMS (ROYAL MAIL SHIP) QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 (QE2) WAS OUTBOUND IN VINEYARD SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS, WHEN THE VESSEL GROUNDED ABOUT 2 1/2 MILES SOUTH OF CUTTYHUNK ISLAND. NO INJURIES OR DEATHS RESULTED FROM THIS ACCIDENT. HOWEVER, DAMAGE WAS SIGNIFICANT; TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT REPAIRS COST ABOUT $13.2 MILLION. IN ADDITION, THE TOTAL REVENUE LOST FOR THE PERIOD BEFORE THE VESSEL RETURNED TO SERVICE ON OCTOBER 2, 1992, WAS ESTIMATED AT $50 MILLION.
Recommendation: THE NTSB RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE PILOT COMMISSIONS: REQUIRE THAT STATE PILOTS, UPON BOARDING A VESSEL, CONDUCT A CONFERENCE WITH THE MASTER AND OTHER RELEVANT DECK OFFICERS THAT INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF THE PILOT'S PROPOSED ROUTE, INCLUDING COURSES, SPEEDS, SQUAT, AND UNIQUE MANEUVERS THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Action
Mode: Marine
Location: Bays and Sounds, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA92MM034
Accident Reports:
Grounding of the United Kingdom Passenger Vessel RMS Queen Elizabeth 2
Report #: MAR-93-01
Accident Date: 8/7/1992
Issue Date: 6/25/1993
Date Closed: 6/8/2001
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: Alabama State Pilotage Commission (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Alaska Board of Marine Pilots (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Board of River Port Pilots Commissioners (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Cape Fear River Navigation and Pilotage Commission (Closed - Unacceptable Action - No Response Received)
City of Savannah, Pilot Commission (Georgia) (Closed - Unacceptable Action - No Response Received)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission of Pilots (Closed - Unacceptable Action)
Florida Board of Commissioners of Pilots (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Navigation Commission for the Delaware River and Its Navigable Tributaries (Closed - Acceptable Action)
New Orleans Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association (Closed - Unacceptable Action)
Rhode Island Pilotage Commission (Closed - Acceptable Action)
South Carolina Pilotage Commission (Closed - Acceptable Action)
State of California, Board of Pilot Commissioners (Closed - Acceptable Action)
State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (Closed - Unacceptable Action - No Response Received)
State of Delaware, Board of Pharmacy and Pilot Commissioners (Closed - Acceptable Action)
State of Hawaii, Department of Consumer and Commercial Affairs (Closed - Unacceptable Action - No Response Received)
State of Maine, Board of Harbor Commissioners (Closed - Unacceptable Action - No Response Received)
State of Maryland, Public Service Commission (Closed - Acceptable Action)
State of Mississippi, Board of Commissioners (Closed - Unacceptable Action - No Response Received)
State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority (Closed - Acceptable Action)
State of New Jersey, Maritime Pilot and Docking Pilot Commission (Closed - Acceptable Action)
State of New York, Board of Commissioners of Pilots (Closed - Reconsidered)
State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots (Closed - Acceptable Action)
State of Washington, Board of Port Pilotage Commissioners (Closed - Unacceptable Action - No Response Received)
Texas Port Commissioners (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Virginia Board for Branch Pilots (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Keyword(s):

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: Florida Board of Commissioners of Pilots
Date: 9/19/2001
Response: The Safety Board is pleased to learn that, in addition to attending biannual training in Bridge Resource Management (BRM) and Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA), described in your letter of May 5, 2001, Florida pilots are also required to have a master-pilot exchange upon boarding every ship, and Florida pilots are also required to use the American Pilots Association (APA) ‘master-pilot’ exchange cards to ensure that this exchange is comprehensive. The required exchange includes discussion with the master and other relevant deck officers regarding the pilot’s proposed route and the courses, speeds, squat, and any unique maneuvers anticipated. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 is classified “Closed--Acceptable Action.”

From: Florida Board of Commissioners of Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 5/8/2001
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 05/16/2001 7:16:15 PM MC# 2010415 Safety recommendations M-93-34 and M-97-45 have been addressed through requirements imposed upon each state licensed pilot for his or her license renewal as per Chapter 310.081(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code rules require each pilot to attend continuing education seminars. Since 1996, board approved seminars have been presented on a biannual basis. Course work has included master/pilot exchange, fatigue, and sleeping disorders.

From: NTSB
To: Florida Board of Commissioners of Pilots
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44 AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: Rhode Island Pilotage Commission
Date: 11/12/1993
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS AMENDED ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS ACCORDINGLY AND THAT RHODE ISLAND PILOTS ARE ALREADY CONDUCTING SUCH CONFERENCE. THEREFORE, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: Rhode Island Pilotage Commission
To: NTSB
Date: 9/20/1993
Response: THE RI STATE PILOTAGE COMMISSION HAS REVISED AND UPDATED ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS, IN PARTICULAR, RULE 50.09 "PILOT BOARDING, ENDING OF A PILOT'S SERVICES, ASSISTING IN DOCKING OR UNDOCKING, AND LEAVING VESSEL UNDERWAY, DISEMARKING," IN RESPONSE TO M-93-34. I BELIEVE THIS UPDATE OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES INCLUDES ALL OF THE RELEVANT PARTS OF RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 AND SHOULD GO A LONG WAY IN REQUIRING THAT PILOTS ACTING UNDER THEIR STATE LICENSE CONFER WITH ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BRIDGE TEAM TO INSURE THE SAFE PASSAGE OF VESSELS IN RHODE ISLAND WATERS.

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots
Date: 7/31/2003
Response: The administrative rule requires pilot-to-pilot information exchange and master-pilot information exchange. Although it does not address the form for master-pilot exchange, the rule clearly specifies that the pilot conduct an information exchange with "the master or other officer apparently in charge" of the vessel. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 is classified "Closed--Acceptable Action."

From: State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 3/27/2003
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 4/3/2003 1:39:59 PM MC# 2030187 In response to your letter dated March 17, 2003, enclosed is the text of the new rule entitled "Pilot Exchanges," that was adopted by the Board of Maritime Pilots on March 19, 2003. All of the proposed language was adopted, with the exception of the reference to specific wording of the master/pilot exchange (MPX) card in paragraph three. It was decided that incorporating the points for discussion listed on an MPX card into the rule would not allow the flexibility to make potential changes, without a required amendment to the rule. The Board agreed to delete the proposed language.

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots
Date: 3/17/2003
Response: You report that the proposed administrative rule will require pilot-to-pilot information exchange and master-pilot information exchange. With respect to the form for master-pilot exchange, the Board of Marine Pilots indicates that it will develop better language that captures the usual and customary practice while providing flexibility for potential exchanges in the subjects covered. These proposed requirements appear responsive to the Safety Board's recommendation. Accordingly, pending receipt of further information on the rewording of the master-to-pilot exchange form and completion of the administrative rule, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 is classified "Open--Acceptable Response."

From: State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 12/23/2002
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 01/03/2003 10:00:21 AM MC# 2030016 Also proposed are requirements for pilot-to-pilot information exchange and master-pilot information exchange with respect to the form for master-pilot exchange (see italicized language of proposed rule), we expect to develop better language that captures the usual and customary practice, while providing flexibility for potential exchanges in the subjects covered.

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots
Date: 9/13/2002
Response: The Safety Board is interested in knowing whether and how its recommendations are implemented, both to ensure that the public is provided the highest level of safety, and to identify creative solutions that might be shared with others. We would appreciate receiving an update from you regarding actions taken or planned to implement the recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots
Date: 7/19/2001
Response: The Safety Board understands that the Board of Maritime Pilots has instituted a policy whereby its member pilots every 5 years must attend the course of instruction in bridge resource management for pilots (BRM-P), which includes the master-pilot exchange. Further, the Board of Maritime Pilots has developed a standardized information form. While the policy of bridge resource management training and the development of a standardized form for master-pilot information exchange are commendable actions, it is not clear if the conference called for in this recommendation is required or even practiced. Please provide information on the use of the standardized master-pilot information exchange form referenced in your response of February 1, 2001. Pending clarification of this issue, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 is classified "Open-Acceptable Response."

From: State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 2/1/2001
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 02/09/2001 5:29:51 PM MC# 2010103 The exchange of information between the master and pilot is one of the topics addressed in a course of bridge resource management for pilots (BRM-P). In developing a program of Continuing Professional Development for our licensees, the Board identified BRM-P as an important component. As of January 1, 200 1, all of our licensees are required to provide documentation of successful completion of at least one BRM-P course in the preceding five years as a condition of license renewal. In addition, our licensees have worked in concert with industry leaders to develop a standardized form for Master-Pilot information exchange.

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon, Board of Maritime Pilots
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: THE SAFETY BOARD WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THESE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS, M-93-34, M-97-44, M-97-45, M-99-24 AND M-99-25.

From: NTSB
To: South Carolina Pilotage Commission
Date: 1/12/2000
Response: THE SAFETY BOARD IS PLEASED TO LEARN THAT CHAPTER 12 OF THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL, HAS BEEN AMENDED TO INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: South Carolina Pilotage Commission
To: NTSB
Date: 10/18/1999
Response: THIS WILL ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR LETTER OF 7/9/99 ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF PILOTAGE, PORT OF CHARLESTON, REGARDING M-93-34, M-97-44, AND M-97-45. THE COMMISSIONERS OF PILOTAGE REFERRED THAT LETTER TO THIS OFFICE, WHICH SERVES TO OVERSEE THE COMMISSIONERS OF PILOTAGE AT THE SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS OF CHARLESTON, GEORGETOWN AND PORT ROYAL. APPARENTLY, THERE WAS AN OVERSIGHT IN NOT RESPONDING TO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE ARE SORRY FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE THAT HAS CAUSED. NEVERTHELESS, I BELIEVE THAY YOU WILL BE PLEASED TO NOTE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS OF PILOTAGE DID TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO IMPLEMENT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. THE STATE-LICENSED CHARLESTON PILOTS HANDLE AT LEAST 95% OF ALL OCEANGOING SHIPPING IN SOUTH CAROLINA. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONERS AT GEORGETOWN AND PORT ROYAL ARE ESSENTIALLY GOVERNED BY THE SAME STATE STATUTES AS CHARLESTON, AND HAVE VERY SIMILAR STATE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUALS. WHAT APPLIES AT CHARLESTON WILL ALSO APPLY AT THOSE OTHER TWO SMALLER PORTS. SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSES TO THE THREE CAPTIONED SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS. SPECIFICALLY: THAT CHAPTER 12, OF THE COMMISSIONS OF PILOTAGE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL, SPECIFICALLY, SECTION I, PILOT--VESSEL MASTER CONFERENCE, HAS BEEN AMENDED TO INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES.

From: NTSB
To: State of Mississippi, Board of Commissioners
Date: 6/8/2001
Response: On July 9, 1999, and on August 22, 2000, the Safety Board requested information on any action taken or planned to implement these safety recommendations. To date, the Safety Board has not received any response. Accordingly, Safety Recommendations M-93-34 and M-97-44 and -45 are classified "Closed-Unacceptable Action/No Response Received."

From: State of Mississippi, Board of Commissioners
To: NTSB
Date: 8/31/2000
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 09/06/2000 4:04:14 PM MC# 2001232

From: NTSB
To: State of Mississippi, Board of Commissioners
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44, AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: State of Washington, Board of Port Pilotage Commissioners
Date: 6/18/2001
Response: ON 7/9/99 AND ON 8/22/00, THE SAFETY BOARD REQUESTED INFORMATION ON ANY ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED TO IMPLEMENT THESE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 AND M-97-44 AND -45 ARE CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED."

From: NTSB
To: State of Washington, Board of Port Pilotage Commissioners
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44, AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: New Orleans Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association
Date: 12/10/2001
Response: On August 31, 1993, based on information in the July 7, 1993, NOBRA letter, the Safety Board classified Safety Recommendation M-93-34 "Open--Unacceptable Response." NOBRA had expressed concern about the practicality of conducting conferences as called for in the recommendation, citing difficulties in river pilotage as compared to open water pilotage. Precisely because of the difficulties cited, the Safety Board urged NOBRA to reconsider the intent of the recommendation. There has been no further response from NOBRA on this issue. On July 9, 1999, and then again on March 3, 2000, the Safety Board requested a follow-up response from the NOBRA on actions taken to implement the above six recommendations. To date, the Safety Board has not received any further response from NOBRA. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 has been classified "Closed--Unacceptable Action," and Safety Recommendations M-97-44 and -45, and M-98-24 through -26 have been classified "Closed--Unacceptable Action/No Response Received." Should NOBRA provide information on the implementation of these recommendations in a timely manner, the Safety Board will review the information and consider reclassifying the recommendations.

From: NTSB
To: New Orleans Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association
Date: 8/31/1993
Response: THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ON A "PRACTICAL BASIS," ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH NAVIGATING A LARGE RIVER SUCH AS THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE ITEMS OF DIFFICULTY THAT YOU MENTIONED, SUCH AS LANGUAGE PROBLEMS, VESSEL HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS AT VARIOUS SPEEDS IN VARYING DEPTHS OF WATER, TRAFFIC, AND THE GENERAL GEOGRAPHY OF AREA TO BE TRANSITED. THE BOARD BELIEVES THAT THE PILOT AND SHIP'S NAGVIGATING CREW SHOULD DISCUSS THE INTENDED TRANSIT BEFOREHAND, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE CONDITIONS OF THE MOMENT, SO THE EACH UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS TO TAKE PLACE AND HOW IT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED. ALL PARTIES INVOLVED SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS EXPECTED REGARDING THE NAVIGATION CHANNEL, THE TRAFFIC, THE SHIP, AND THE NAVIGATING PERSONNEL. TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANCHOR THE VESSEL FOR A 3-OR 4-HOUR CONFERENCE; A SHORT INITIAL DISCUSSION, FOLLOWED BY UPDATES AS NEEDED DURING THE TRANSIT, WOULD PROBABLY BE SUFFICIENT. THE BOARD REQUESTS THAT THE NOBRA PILOTS RECONSIDER THE INTENT, APPLICABILITY, AND MERIT OF THIS RECOMMENDATION AND IMPLEMENT A POLICY REQUIRING PILOT CONFERENCES. PENDING YOUR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 WILL BE CLASSIFIED "OPEN--UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE."

From: New Orleans Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association
To: NTSB
Date: 7/7/1993
Response:

From: NTSB
To: City of Savannah, Pilot Commission (Georgia)
Date: 6/8/2001
Response: ON 7/9/99 AND ON 8/22/00, THE SAFETY BOARD REQUESTED INFORMATION ON ANY ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED TO IMPLEMENT THESE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS STILL RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOU. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 AND M-97-44 AND -45 ARE CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED."

From: NTSB
To: City of Savannah, Pilot Commission (Georgia)
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44 AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: Cape Fear River Navigation and Pilotage Commission
Date: 6/8/2001
Response: ON 7/9/99 AND ON 8/22/00, THE SAFETY BOARD REQUESTED INFORMATION ON ANY ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED TO IMPLEMENT THESE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS STILL RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOU. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 AND M-97-44 AND -45 ARE CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED."

From: NTSB
To: Cape Fear River Navigation and Pilotage Commission
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44, AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: State of New York, Board of Commissioners of Pilots
Date: 9/16/1993
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PILOTS ALREADY REQUIRES STATE PILOTS UPON BOARDING A VESSEL TO CONDUCT A CONFERENCE WITH THE MASTER AND OTHER RELEVANT DECK OFFICERS. THEREFORE, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--RECONSIDERED." WE HAVE ENCLOSED, FOR YOUR INFORMATION, A DRAFT COPY OF A PAPER DEVELOPED BY THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS, MARINE SAFETY PANEL, THAT ADDRESSES THE INTENT OF M-93-34. WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU PASS IT ALONG TO YOUR CONSTITUENCY.

From: State of New York, Board of Commissioners of Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 7/15/1993
Response: CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO STATE PILOT COMMISSIONS CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER ON PAGE 2, PLEASE BE ADVISED: THE POLICY AND PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY THIS BOARD REQUIRE A CONFERENCE WITH THE MASTER OR AUTHORIZED WATCH OFFICER TO EXCHANGE ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW, AND BY ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY PERTAIN AT THE TIME...SUCH AS RESTRICTED NAVIGATION IN CHANNELS DUE TO DREDGING, TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLAN TO USE ASSIST TUGS DURING DOCKING, ETC. THIS INFORMATION IS EXCHANGED PRIOR TO THE VESSEL COMMENCING ITS PASSAGE THROUGH PILOTAGE WATERS. THE BOARD CONCURS WITH THE NTSB FINDINGS REGARDING VIGILANCE ON THE PART OF PILOTS, WATCH OFFICERS SHIP'S COMMAND AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BRIDGE TEAM. WE HAVE REGULARLY EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, GOOD COMMUNICATIONS AND PROPER PLANNING. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO MAKE OBSERVATION/AUDIT TRIPS TO OBSERVE AND REVIEW THESE PROCEDURES. WE APPRECIATE YOUR EMPHASIZING THE CONTINUING NEED FOR IMPROVED PLANNING AND COMMUNICATION AMONG BRIDGE TEAM MEMBERS. A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS BEING DISTRIBUTED TO THE 3 STATE PILOT ASSOCIATIONS UNDER OUR JURISDICTION (SANDY HOOK PILOTS ASSOC., HUDSON RIVER PILOTS ASSOC., SOUND PILOTS ASSOC., AND ALSO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSS OF PILOTAGE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY).

From: NTSB
To: State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation
Date: 6/8/2001
Response: ON 7/9/99 AND ON 8/22/00, THE SAFETY BOARD REQUESTED INFORMATION ON ANY ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED TO IMPLEMENT THESE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS STILL RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOU. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 AND M-97-44 AND -45 ARE CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED."

From: NTSB
To: State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44 AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans
Date: 1/28/1994
Response: FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS AMONG SAFETY BOARD STAFF AND ABP MEMBERS AT PILOT TOWN AND OBSERVATION OF A MEMBER PILOT DURING AN INBOUND TRANSIT, MY STAFF IS CONVINCED THAT THE CONCEPT OF BRM HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO DAILY OPERATIONS. THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans
To: NTSB
Date: 9/13/1993
Response:

From: NTSB
To: Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans
Date: 8/23/1993
Response: THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS YOUR CONCERNS, ON A "PRACTICAL BASIS," ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION. THE INTENT OF RECOMMEDATION M-93-34 IS THAT THE PILOT AND SHIP'S NAVIGATING CREW DISCUSS THE INTENDED TRANSIT BEFOREHAND TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE CONDITIONS OF THE MOMENT, SO THAT EACH UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS TO TAKE PLACE AND HOW IT IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. ALL PARTIES INVOLVED SHOULD WHAT IS EXPECTED REGARDING THE NAVIGATION CHANNEL, THE TRAFFIC, THE SHIP, AND THE NAVIGATING PERSONNEL. ALTHOUGH THE ASSOCIATED BRANCH PILOTS DOES NOT PLAN TO REQUIRE THAT PILOTS IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION, THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT MEMBERS WILL BE ENCOURAGED TO CONDUCT PILOT CONFERENCES WHENEVER SUCH DISCUSSIONS ARE DEEMED PRUDENT. THE BOARD APPRECIATES THE ASSOCIATED BRANCH PILOTS' INVITATION TO VISIT WITH YOU AND TO TRANSIT ROUTES AND AREAS UNDER THE ASSOCIATED BRANCH PILOTS' JURISDICTION. WE WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE YOUR OPERATION AND FURTHER EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR PILOT AND MASTER/NAVIGATION CREW CONFERENCES; PENDING OUR MEETING AND DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 WILL BE CLASSIFIED "OPEN--ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE." A MEMBER OF MY STAFF WILL CONTACT YOUR OFFICE TO ARRANGE THIS VISIT.

From: Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans
To: NTSB
Date: 7/3/1993
Response:

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission of Pilots
Date: 1/11/2001
Response: The Safety Board understands that Mr. Hallisey rode several ships with Boston pilots and he observed that the pilots consult with the master and other officers and receive a sheet of relevant ship-handling particulars from the master. In addition, all Massachusetts pilots are required to take four courses every 10 years, one of which is Bridge Resource Management. The above is commendable. However, the Safety Board is disappointed that although more than 7 years have passed since this recommendation was issued, the Commissioners still do not require that State pilots, upon boarding a vessel, conduct a conference with the master and other relevant deck officers that includes a discussion of the pilot’s proposed route, including courses, speeds, squat, and unique maneuvers that may be encountered. Consequently, Safety Recommendation M?93?34 is classified Closed--Unacceptable Action.”

From: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission of Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 8/31/2000
Response: MC2001232. We have forwarded your letter and enclosures to the President of the Boston Pilots. (Capt. Arthur Whittemore). We understand that the recommendation #M-93-34 has also been made by IMCO and the USCG. Our Junior Commissioner has ridden several ships with the Boston Pilots and observed that, not only do they consult with the Master and other officers, but receive from the Master a sheet of relevant ship handling particulars as part of the conference.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commission of Pilots
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44, AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: State of California, Board of Pilot Commissioners
Date: 12/9/1999
Response: The Safety Board is pleased to learn that the State Board of Pilot Commissioners now requires master-pilot conferences, as requested, and that all pilots must attend Bridge Resource Management for Pilots training on a 3-year cycle. Accordingly, M-93-34 has been classified "Closed--Acceptable Action."

From: State of California, Board of Pilot Commissioners
To: NTSB
Date: 7/15/1999
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 7/21/99 12:02:07 PM MC# 990773 M-93-34 was overtaken by events rising from the development of the San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun Bays Harbor Safety Plan, most recently modified in 1998. The plans tug escort requirements for tank vessels (cope enclosed) include a detailed master/pilot conference and checklist. This requirement is only for tank vessels, but the master/pilot conference has become institutionalized and is done on all vessels. This is reinforced by the Bridge Resource Management for Pilots training which is required on a three year cycle by Board Regulations.

From: NTSB
To: State of New Jersey, Maritime Pilot and Docking Pilot Commission
Date: 11/12/1993
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ALREADY REQUIRES SUCH CONFERENCES. FURTHER, WE UNDERSTAND THAT PILOTS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND REMINDED OF THE CONTINUING NEED FOR THE CONFERENCES. THEREFORE, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: State of New Jersey, Maritime Pilot and Docking Pilot Commission
To: NTSB
Date: 8/27/1993
Response: THE NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PILOT COMMISSIONERS CONCUR WITH THE NTSB RECOMMENDATION. IT IS THE LONG STANDING PRACTICE AND POLICY OF THE STATE LICENSED SANDY HOOK PILOTS TO DISCUSS WITH THE MASTER OR BRIDGE WATCH OFFICER VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION BY COPY OF THIS LETTER, PILOTS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BOARD ARE NOTIFIED OF THE NTSB RECOMMENDATION AND REMINDED OF THE CONTINUING NEED FOR SUCH BRIDGE CONFERENCES.

From: NTSB
To: Board of River Port Pilots Commissioners
Date: 9/16/1993
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THE BOARD OF RIVER PORT PILOTS COMMISSIIONERS ALREADY REQUIRES ITS PILOTS UPON BOARDING A VESSEL TO CONDUCT A CONFERENCE WITH THE MASTER AND OTHER RELEVANT DECK OFFICERS AND HAS INSTRUCTED ITS PILOTS TO EMPHASIZE UNIQUE MANEUVERS THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED. RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 HAS, THEREFORE CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: Board of River Port Pilots Commissioners
To: NTSB
Date: 7/14/1993
Response: IN REFERENCE TO NTSB RECOMMENDATION M-93-34, THE BOARD OF RIVER PORT PILOT COMMISSIONERS HAS DISTRIBUTED A COPY OF YOUR LETTER DATED 25 JUNE 1993, CONTAINING YOUR RECOMMENDATION. PRESENTLY, THE MASTER/PILOT EXCHANGE WHICH OCCURS BETWEEN THE MASTER AND THE ONCOMING PILOT SHOULD INCLUDE MOST OF THE INFORMATION ADVOCATED BY YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WE HAVE HOWEVER, INSTRUCTED RIVER PORT PILOTS TO EMPHASIZE ANY "UNIQUE MANEUVERS" WHICH MAY BE ENCOUNTERED, TO CONFORM MORE CLOSELY TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maine, Board of Harbor Commissioners
Date: 6/8/2001
Response: ON 7/7/99 AND ON 8/22/00, THE SAFETY BOARD REQUESTED INFORMATION ON ANY ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED TO IMPLEMENT THESE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS STILL RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOU. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 AND M-97-44 AND -45 ARE CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED."

From: NTSB
To: State of Hawaii, Department of Consumer and Commercial Affairs
Date: 6/8/2001
Response: ON 7/9/99 AND ON 8/22/00, THE SAFETY BOARD REQUESTED INFORMATION ON ANY ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED TO IMPLEMENT THESE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS STILL RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOU. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 AND M-97-44 AND -45 ARE CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED."

From: NTSB
To: State of Hawaii, Department of Consumer and Commercial Affairs
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44, AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: Alabama State Pilotage Commission
Date: 11/12/1993
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THE STATE PILOTAGE COMMISSION ENCOURAGES THE CONTINUATION OF THIS PRACTICE, AND MOBILE BAR PILOTS ASSOCIATION MEMBERS ARE CONDUCTING SUCH CONFERENCES. FURTHER, WE UNDERSTAND THAT PILOT UNDER THE JURSIDICTION OF THE MOBILE BAR PILOTS ASSOCIATION WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND REMINDED OF THE CONINUING NEED FOR THE CONFERENCES. THEREFORE, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCPETABLE ACTION."

From: Alabama State Pilotage Commission
To: NTSB
Date: 9/10/1993
Response: AT A MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1993, THE MEMBERS OF THE STATE PILOTAGE COMMISSION DISCUSSED YOUR CORRESPONDENCE ON RECOMMENDATION M-93-034. A COPY OF YOUR CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE DELIVERED TO THE MOBILE BAR PILOTS ASSOCIATION AND ALTHOUGH WE ARE SATISFIED THAT IT HAS LONG BEEN A PRACTICE OF THE MOBILE BAR PILOTS TO CONFER WITH A MASTER UPON BOARDING A VESSEL, HOLDING A DISCUSSION GENERALLY FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN M-93-34, WE WILL REQUEST THAT THEY CONTINUE TO FOLLOW SAFETY RECOMMENDATION M-93-34.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maryland, Public Service Commission
Date: 2/10/1994
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THE STATE BOARD OF PILOTS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND PILOTS STRONGLY ENDORSE THAT PRACTICE OF EFFECTIVE BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. MR. SACHSE WRITES THAT ALL STATE-LICENSED PILOTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ENSURE GOOD COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ALL PARTIES AND ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CERTIFIED IN BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO INCREASE COMMUNICATION ON THE BRIDGE. THEREFORE, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: State of Maryland, Public Service Commission
To: NTSB
Date: 11/9/1993
Response: AT ITS MEETING ON 10/8/93, THE MD BOARD OF PILOTS DISCUSSED RECOMMENDATIONM-93-34. THE BOARD WISHES TO ADVISE YOU THAT THE PRACTICE OF EFFECTIVE BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IS STRONGLY ENDORSED BY THE STATE BOARD OF PILOTS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND PILOTS. ALL STATE LICENSE PILOTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ASSURE GOOD COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ALL PARTIES AND ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CERTIFIED IN BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TO INCREASE COMMUNICATION ON THE BRIDGE.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maryland, Public Service Commission
Date: 8/10/1993
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD OF PILOTS ON 10/8/93. RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 WILL BE CLASSIFIED "OPEN--ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE" PENDING NOTIFICATION ON THE ACTION TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION.

From: State of Maryland, Public Service Commission
To: NTSB
Date: 7/12/1993
Response: THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD OF PILOTS ON OCTOBER 8. 1993.

From: NTSB
To: State of Delaware, Board of Pharmacy and Pilot Commissioners
Date: 12/2/1993
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THE COMMISSION ALREADY REQUIRES SUCH CONFERENCES AND THAT THE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION FOR THE BAY RIVER DELAWARE HAS BEEN ACTIVE IN THE STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF SQUAT. FURTHER, WE UNDERSTAND THAT PILOTS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION RECEIVE EXTENSIVE TRAINING AT VARIOUS SCHOOLD FOR RADAR AND SHIPHANDLING AND THAT ALL FIRST-CLASS PILOTS RECEIVE ADVANCED TRAINING AT THE PORT REVEL, FRANCE, TRAINING FACILITY. THE ADVANCED TRAINING EMPHASIZES SQUAT IN SHALLOW WATERS. THEREFORE, RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION.

From: State of Delaware, Board of Pharmacy and Pilot Commissioners
To: NTSB
Date: 10/13/1993
Response: WHILE THIS REPORT WILL BE REVISITED AT THE NOVEMBER 5, 1993 MEETING OF THE COMMISSION,THE ONLY WAY THIS INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED IS THROUGH A CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE PILOT AND THE MASTER. THESE CONFERENCES HAVE BEEN IN PRACTICE IN PENNSYLVANIA SINCE THE LATE 1980'S. WITH THE HELP OF OUR COMMISSION, THE PILOT'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE BAY AND RIVER DELAWARE HAS BEEN IN THE FOREFRONT INSEARCH AND STUDIES PERTAINING TO SQUAT. THE NAVIGATION COMMISSION AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROVED ASSOCIATION RATES FOR PILOTAGE WHICH INCLUDED PROVISIONS FOR AN ONGOING TRAINING PROGRAM AT VARIOUS SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. THESE INCLUDED THE LATEST RADAR AND SHIPHANDLING SIMULATORS. IN ADDITION, ALL FIRST CALSS PILOTS HAVE TAKEN THE ADVANCED TRAINING COURSE AT PORT REVEL, FRANCE WITH AN EMPHASIS ON SQUAT IN SHALLOW WATERS.

From: NTSB
To: Navigation Commission for the Delaware River and Its Navigable Tributaries
Date: 1/13/2000
Response: THE SAFETY BOARD IS PLEASED TO LEARN THAT THE COMMISSION REQUIRES CONTINUING EDUCATION ON BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (BRM), WHICH EMPHASIZES MASTER-PILOT CONFERENCES. THE BOARD IS ALSO PLEASED THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA PILOTS ARE CURRENTLY TAKING BRM TRAINING. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: Navigation Commission for the Delaware River and Its Navigable Tributaries
To: NTSB
Date: 10/7/1999
Response: I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW-UP TO YOUR LETTER OF 7/9/99 REGARDING REQUESTS MADE IN 1993 AND 1997 REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATIONS AND CHANGES IN THE FORMS OF THE NAVIGATION COMMISSION FOR THE DELAWARE RIVER AND ITS NAVIGABLE TRIBUTARIES. ON 9/30/99, THE NAVIGATION COMMISSION MET AND REVIEWED THE REGULATORY PACKAGE THAT THE DEPT. OF STATE HAD PREPARED, WHICH INCLUDED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SAFETY BOARD. I AM PLEASED TO INFORM YOU THAT THE NAVIGATION COMMISSION ADOPTED ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SAFETY BOARD. THESE INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS, RANDOM DRUG TESTING AND CONTINUING EDUCATION ON BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (BRM). THE COURSES ON BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT EITHER INCLUDE A SPECIFIC MODULE ON IDENTIFYING AND COUNTERING THE EFFECTS OF FATIGUE, ON BOTH PILOTS AND CREW, OR COVER THE SUBJECT AS A BASIC CONSIDERATION IN SELECTING THE MOST EFFECTIVE BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. IN FACT, PENNSYLVANIA PILOTS ARE CURRENTLY TAKING COURSES ON BRM.

From: NTSB
To: Virginia Board for Branch Pilots
Date: 12/15/1999
Response: THE SAFETY BOARD IS PLEASED TO LEARN THAT THE BOARD FOR BRANCH PILOTS' REGULATIONS REQUIRE MASTER-PILOT CONFERENCES AND THAT YOUR BOARD REQUIRES ALL PILOTS TO ATTEND BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COURSES. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ACTION."

From: Virginia Board for Branch Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 8/26/1999
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 9/2/99 3:06:23 PM MC# 990983 THE BOARD OF BRANCH PILOTS REGULATIONS HAVE FOR MANY YEARS REQUIRED MASTER PILOT CONFERENCES AS REQUESTED AND THAT ALL PILOTS ARE NOW REQUIRED TO ATTEND BRIDGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR PILOTS.

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority
Date: 10/22/2003
Response: The Safety Board notes that the Pease Development Authority has revised its administrative rules and that Section Pda 304.02 requires a pilot to conduct a conference with the master and deck officers as soon as practicable after boarding to review route, course, speed, squat and any unique maneuvers. The revised rule addresses the Board's recommendation; accordingly, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 is classified "Closed--Acceptable Action."

From: State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority
To: NTSB
Date: 7/23/2003
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 8/7/2003 11:04:34 AM MC# 2030381 Enclosed please find Pease Development Authority Chapter 300 "Port Captains, Pilots and Pilotage". The Pease Development Authority, Division of Ports and Harbors has revised its Administrative Rules. The section Pda 304.02 addresses the NTSB recommendation M-94-34.

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority
Date: 12/19/2002
Response: The Safety Board is pleased that the Pease Development Authority has taken this step to improve marine safety. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 is classified "Open--Acceptable Response," pending approval and adoption of the proposed rule by the New Hampshire legislature. The Safety Board would appreciate receiving notification of the final action by the legislature on this initiative. If the Safety Board can support your efforts in the legislature through testimony or meetings with legislators, please contact Elaine Weinstein, Director of the Safety Board's Office of Safety Recommendations and Accomplishments, at (202) 314-6170.

From: State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority
To: NTSB
Date: 10/2/2002
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 10/11/2002 3:53:17 PM MC# 2020859 We recently received a letter from Director Elaine Weinstein regarding actions taken or plans to implement recommendations as advised in Safety Recommendation M-93-34. Attached please rind proposed Pease Development Authority Chapter 300 "Port Captains, Pilots and Pilotage". The Pease Development Authority, Division of Ports and Harbors is reviewing and revising its Administrative Rules. The attached proposals are presently before the New Hampshire Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules. Section Pda 304.2 titled "Pilot Conferences" was put into the proposed rules as a result of the NTSB recommendation M-94-34. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please call me. Pda 304.02 - Pilot Conferences. (a) When a pilot boards a vessel for the purpose of piloting the vessel, the pilot shall conduct, as soon as practicable upon boarding, a conference with the master of the vessel and other deck officers on watch on the vessel's bridge. During this conference, the pilot, the master of the vessel and the deck officers in attendance shall review and identify the following: (1) The pilot's proposed route through the pilotage area; (2) The pilot's proposed course, speed, and squat; (3) Any proposed special maneuvering of the piloted vessel required to transit the pilotage area or berth the piloted vessel; and (4) Any other information deemed relevant by the pilot to promote the safety of the piloted vessel, other vessels in the pilotage area, or the public during transit of the pilotage area or berthing of the piloted vessel. (b) In addition, during the conference required under paragraph (a) above, the master of the vessel shall inform the pilot of the status of all of the piloted vessel's safety and navigational equipment as well as the overall seaworthiness of the piloted vessel. (c) If the pilot is informed by the master of any safety or navigational equipment deficiencies of the piloted vessel or deficiencies in the overall seaworthiness of the piloted vessel, the pilot shall promptly notify the United States Coast Guard and the division of such deficiencies. Upon notification of such deficiencies, the pilot shall have the sole discretion under Pda 304.01(c) to determine if the vessel shall enter the pilotage area. (d) The pilot shall transmit in writing to the United States Coast Guard and the division, within 7 days of the initial report from the vessel's master, a list and description of each of the deficiencies reported pursuant to Pda 304.02(c). (e) The pilot shall maintain a log summarizing the information obtained during the conference required pursuant to Pda 304.02 (a) and (b) above, including at a minimum the information required pursuant to Pda 304,02(a)(l)-(a)(4) and the list of equipment deficiencies identified pursuant to Pda 304.02(c).

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority
Date: 9/18/2002
Response: Your November 21, 2000, response, indicated that the Portsmouth pilots had initiated an internal policy requiring all pilots, upon boarding a vessel, to confer with the master and other relevant deck officers as described in the recommendation. Further, the Port Authority had initiated a review of the New Hampshire State Pilot Regulations, Par. 500, as they pertain to safety issues. Accordingly, on July 19, 2001, pending receipt of further information from the Port Authority on the outcome of this review, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 was classified "Open--Acceptable Response." The Safety Board is interested in knowing whether and how its recommendations are implemented, both to ensure that the public is provided the highest level of safety, and to identify creative solutions that might be shared with others. That is why we monitor the implementation of all our recommendations. We would appreciate receiving an update from you regarding actions taken or planned to implement the recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority
Date: 7/19/2001
Response: The Safety Board understands from you that the Portsmouth pilots have initiated an internal policy whereby all pilots are required, upon boarding a vessel, to conduct a conference with the master and other relevant deck officers that includes a discussion of the pilot's proposed route, including courses, speeds, squat, and unique maneuvers that may be encountered. We further understand from your November 21, 2000, letter that the Port Authority has initiated a review of the New Hampshire State Pilot Regulations, Por. 500, as they pertain to safety issues Accordingly, pending further information from the Port Authority on the outcome of this review, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 is classified "Open-Acceptable Response."

From: State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority
To: NTSB
Date: 11/21/2000
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 11/24/2000 4:48:04 PM MC# 2001729 Please be advised that I have met with the members of the Portsmouth Pilots Association to discuss the above mentioned safety matters. The pilots were provided copies of those safety recommendations by a former port director and have implemented safety procedures to address these issues. Furthermore, the NH State Port Authority has initiated a review of the NH State Pilot Regulations, Por. 500, as they pertain to safety issues.

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire, City of Portsmouth, Port Authority
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44, AND M-97-45.

From: NTSB
To: Alaska Board of Marine Pilots
Date: 12/23/1999
Response: The Safety Board classified M-93-34 "Closed--Acceptable Action," on 6/20/97, in its report of the Star Princess accident investigation (NTSB/MAR-97/02), because the Alaska Board had amended its regulations to require that Alaska pilots, upon boarding a vessel, conduct a conference with the master and other relevant deck officers that includes a discussion of the pilot's proposed route, including courses, speeds, squat, and unique maneuvers that may be encountered.

From: Alaska Board of Marine Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 8/10/1999
Response:

From: NTSB
To: Alaska Board of Marine Pilots
Date: 8/16/1993
Response: THE BOARD IS PLEASED THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE SEPTEMBER PILOT BOARD MEETING AND THAT COPIES OF THE RECOMMENDATION HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE ALASKA PILOT ASSOCIATIONS SOLICITING THEIR COMMENTS FOR THIS MEETING. RECOMMENDATION M-93-34 WILL BE CLASSIFIED "OPEN--ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE" PENDING NOTIFICATION ON THE ACTION TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION. WE HAVE ALSO ENCLOSED A DRAFT COPY OF A PAPER DEVELOPED BY THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS, MARINE SAFETY PANEL, THAT ADDRESSES THE INTENT OF M-93-34 AND RECOMMEND THAT YOU PASS IT ALONG TO YOUR CONSTITUENCY.

From: Alaska Board of Marine Pilots
To: NTSB
Date: 7/15/1993
Response: THE AK MARINE PILOT COORDINATOR FORWARDED A COPY OF THE LETTER HE SENT TO HIS CONSTITUENCY. IT READS..."THE PROBLEM OF PILOT/MASTER COMMUNICATIONS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED INFORMALLY DURING SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS TO WHICH I'VE BEEN PARTY, AND I APPRECIATE THE PROBLEMS WHICH ARE INHERENT TO FAULTY OR INCOMPLETE COMMUNICATIONS. A RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REPORT ON PAGE 2 FOR STATE PILOT COMMISSIONS (BOARDS) TO ACT UPON. I WILL INCLUDE THIS ITEM IN THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING AGENDA, HOWEVER, I SOLICIT YOUR INPUTS IN ADVANCE BEFORE PUBLIC DISCUSSION TO INCLUDE IN THE PACKAGE FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS. I BELIEVE THERE IS VALIDITY IN THE RECOMMENDATION AND LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING YOUR COMMENTS BEFORE AUGUST 15, 1993."...

From: NTSB
To: Texas Port Commissioners
Date: 9/19/2001
Response: Because the Commissioners have instituted a program that satisfies the recommendation, Safety Recommendation M-93-34 is classified “Closed—Acceptable Action.”

From: NTSB
To: Texas Port Commissioners
Date: 6/8/2001
Response: ON 7/9/00 AND ON 8/22/00, THE SAFETY BOARD REQUESTED INFORMATION ON ANY ACTION TAKEN OR PLANNED TO IMPLEMENT THESE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS. TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS STILL RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOU. ACCORDINGLY, M-93-34 AND M-97-44 AND -45 ARE CLASSIFIED "CLOSED--UNACCEPTABLE ACTION, NO RESPONSE RECEIVED."

From: Texas Port Commissioners
To: NTSB
Date: 5/31/2001
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 06/12/2001 5:39:19 PM MC# 2010491 Please be advised that it has always been the routine practice of Houston Pilots to engage in a ‘Master-Pilot Exchange’ conference with the ship’s captain prior to commencing a transit. The Pilot and the Master discuss the items set forth in the NTSB’s comment, and have the Ship’s Master verify that his vessel and crew are ready to proceed. A ‘Master-Pilot Exchange Card’ has been adopted and formalized to insure standardization. The importance of this interchange is covered in a Bridge Resource Management Seminar that all Houston Pilots attend. A maritime expert retained by the Pilots as an outside contractor presents the seminar.

From: NTSB
To: Texas Port Commissioners
Date: 8/22/2000
Response: TO DATE, THE SAFETY BOARD HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR STATE PILOT COMMISSION, AND WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT M-93-34, M-97-44, AND M-97-45.