The Deep Draft

In pilotage waters, a single word can blur the line between advice and command and that blur can sink both safety and legal clarity.

After publishing my recent article on SIRE 2.0 , few readers raised an important question. Does the pilot hold the Conn or command of the vessel during pilotage?

Some argue that the pilot “has the Conn” or tactical control, implying a transfer of authority. This confusion is not mere semantics; it directly impacts legal accountability and operational safety.

1. Command: The Master’s Absolute and Continuous Authority

Definition: Command means the Master holds the ultimate and continuous authority and responsibility for the vessel’s safety, navigation, and operation.

Legal Backing:

IMO Resolution A.960 (Annex 2) states, “The master, and not the pilot, is at all times in command of the ship.”

STCW Code, Section A-VIII/2: The Officer of the Watch and Master retain responsibility even when a pilot is aboard.

SOLAS Chapter V, Regulation 34–1: The Master has “overriding authority” to make decisions for the safety of the ship.

Command is indivisible and non-transferable. The Master’s authority cannot be delegated or handed over under any circumstance.

Every convention, from SOLAS to STCW, treats command as absolute. There is no legal recognition of Conn as a separate or transferable function.

2. The Conn: Clarifying Operational Control and the Pilot’s Role

Common Misconception: The pilot “holds the Conn”, directly commanding helm and engine orders during pilotage.

Reality: In merchant shipping practice, the pilot does not issue orders directly to the helmsman or engine room. In naval tradition, particularly in navies such as the US and Royal Navy, Conn is a formal watchstanding designation. In merchant shipping, however, the concept does not exist; law and practice never separate Conn from Command.

In merchant shipping, Conn is never transferred. The full authority to give helm and engine orders remains, both legally and operationally, with the Master or delegated OOW.

Specifically –

1. Pilot provides professional advice (courses, speeds, maneuvering).

2. Pilot does not issue helm/engine commands directly but communicates to Master/OOW.

3. Master/OOW verifies, authorizes, and conveys instructions to the crew per SMS.

4. Master retains the right to modify or refuse any pilot advice.

Widely accepted industry guidance supports this approach. The International Maritime Pilots’ Association (IMPA) and Nautical Institute emphasize that pilots advise under the Master’s authority. The Master monitors pilot actions and can intervene if necessary. Any suggestion that the pilot “holds the Conn” is a misinterpretation and implies an illegal transfer of operational control. The pilot is a skilled adviser familiar with local waters, but he cannot bypass or dilute the Master’s authority.

In some jurisdictions, particularly the United States and Canada, compulsory pilotage laws define the pilot as having statutory authority to conduct the navigation of the ship. Even in these cases the Master retains command, overriding authority, and the duty to intervene if safety is endangered. By contrast, international conventions such as SOLAS, STCW, and IMO Resolution A.960 do not recognize any transfer of Conn. They consistently affirm that both Command and Conn remain with the Master or the OOW, while the pilot advises.

The word “Conn” has no place in pilotage law or modern SMS. It is a navalism that introduces ambiguity where none should exist. International law recognizes only one reality: the Master is in command, and the pilot advises. By insisting on a ‘Conn handover,’ inspectors and auditors are inventing a procedure that neither SOLAS, STCW, nor case law supports. If the industry is serious about clarity and safety, we must stop using “Conn” altogether in the context of pilotage.

3. Why This Distinction Matters in Practice and Inspections

The misconception that the pilot “takes the Conn” introduces operational and legal risks:

– Confusion: It suggests a transfer of control that does not exist in international conventions.

– Contradiction: Safety Management Systems and company procedures deliberately avoid language that implies Conn or command transfer.

– Inspection Errors: Inspectors demanding proof of “Conn handover to pilot” are imposing a non-existent requirement, undermining inspection credibility.

– Legal Liability: In any incident, courts have consistently held Masters and owners responsible, even when pilots were directing navigation. The notion of a pilot ‘holding the Conn’ has never reduced the Master’s liability.

4. The Master-Pilot Relationship: Cooperation, Not Delegation

Navigation in pilotage waters depends on mutual respect and cooperation between Master and pilot:

– The pilot advises based on expertise; the Master commands and authorizes.

– The Master monitors the pilot’s actions and is empowered to displace the pilot if safety is compromised (e.g., incompetence or intoxication).

– Practical operation and law maintain that the pilot’s role is to assist. He may advise, but he cannot command, and he cannot hold Conn.

– In short, both Command and Conn remain with the Master/OOW, while the pilot strictly advises.

This clarification reinforces my original argument. OCIMF inspectors must understand and respect maritime command structures. Inspection criteria must align with international law and practical realities. Instead, inspectors must move beyond rigid SIRE 2.0 tablet prompts. Over-reliance on tablet prompts, without comprehension or context, reduces inspections to box-ticking rather than genuine safety evaluation.

By removing “Conn” from pilotage vocabulary, we remove ambiguity and that’s a win for safety, law, and professional integrity.