Advertisement

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 77–99 | Cite as

Present pilotage practices in Finland

  • Jouni LappalainenEmail author
  • Vappu Kunnaala
  • Ulla Tapaninen
Article

Abstract

Pilotage has been studied very little internationally and also in Finland. However, accidents in which pilots have been involved have been investigated thoroughly. Studies show that the traditional individual-centred pilotage with non-written passage plans no longer serves the needs of today's traffic and vessels that have increased in size. Pilotage should be based on the so-called good pilotage practices, i.e. pre-prepared, yet adaptable passage plans, more efficient bridge co-operation and modern navigation instruments. Yet, these are not an integral part of the prevailing pilotage practices in Finland. Pilotage should be developed so that the safety management systems of the vessels support the co-operation on the bridge, but on the other hand, so that the advantages of today's pilotage practices are maintained.

Keywords

Bridge co-operation Passage plan Maritime pilotage Maritime safety Pilotage practices 

References

  1. Bruno K, Lützhöft M (2009) Shore-based pilotage: pilot or autopilot? Piloting as a control problem. J Navig 62:427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Darbra RM, Crawford JFE, Haley CW, Morrison RJ (2007) Safety culture and hazard risk perception of Australian and New Zealand maritime pilots. Mar Policy 31(6):736–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drouin P (2008) The pilotage paradox—Cosco Busan. Seaways September 2008Google Scholar
  4. Drouin P, Robin H (2009) The pilotage paradigm—the need for a paradigm shift. Seaways October 2009Google Scholar
  5. EMPA (1997) Charter on pilotage, 32nd EMPA General Meeting, European Maritime Pilots AssociationGoogle Scholar
  6. EMPA (1998) Code of best practice for European Maritime Pilots, 33rd EMPA General Meeting, European Maritime Pilots AssociationGoogle Scholar
  7. Filor K (2008) Managing pilotage safely—enhanced pilot safety management: an Australian approach. Seaways February 2008Google Scholar
  8. Government Decree on Pilotage (246/2011) Unofficial translation, legally binding only in Finnish and Swedish, Ministry of Transport and Communications, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Hadley M, Pourzanjani M (2003) How remote is remote pilotage? WMU J Marit Aff 2(2):181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IALA (2007) On quality management for competent pilotage authorities and pilotage service providers. Recommendation P-137. Int Assoc Mar Aids Navig Lighthouse AuthoritiesGoogle Scholar
  11. IMO (2000) Guidelines for voyage planning. Resolution A.893(21), International Maritime OrganisationGoogle Scholar
  12. IMO (2004) Recommendations on training and certification and on operational procedures for maritime pilots other than deep-sea pilots. Resolution A.960(23), International Maritime OrganisationGoogle Scholar
  13. ISPO (2009) International Standard for Pilotage Organizations Part AGoogle Scholar
  14. Kujala P, Hänninen M, Arola T, Ylitalo J (2009) Analysis of the marine traffic safety in the Gulf of Finland. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(8):1349–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kunnaala V, Lappalainen J, Tapaninen U (2013) Review of pilotage processes and indicators in pilotage organisations. WMU J Marit Aff 12(1):99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuronen J, Lehikoinen A, Tapaninen U (2009) Maritime transportation in the gulf of Finland in 2007 and three alternative scenarios for 2015. The Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME 2009), Copenhagen, 24–26 Jun 2009Google Scholar
  17. Lappalainen J, Kunnaala V, Nygren P, Tapaninen U (2011) Effectiveness of Pilotage. Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies University of Turku, A57Google Scholar
  18. Lützhöft MH, Nyce JM (2006) Piloting by heart and by chart. J Navig 59:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marine Board of the National Research Council (1994) Minding the helm—marine navigation and piloting. Committee on Advances in Navigation and Piloting. National Academic, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Norros L, Hukki K, Haapio A, Hellevaara M (1998) Päätöksenteko komentosillalla luotsaustilanteessa. VTT Julkaisuja–Publikationer 833 http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/julkaisut/1998/J833.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2011
  21. Norros L, Nuutinen M, Larjo K (2006) Luotsauksen toimintatavat ja kulttuuri onnettomuustapausten valossa. Onnettomuustutkintakeskus. Turvallisuusselvitys S 1/2004 M. Multiprint, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  22. Nuutinen M, Norros L (2009) Core task analysis in accident investigation: analysis of maritime accidents in piloting situations. Cogn Tech Work 11:129–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pacific Pilotage Authority (2009) Annual report 2009. http://www.ppa.gc.ca/text/publications/annualreport2009-e.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  24. Pilotage Act 940/21.11.2003 and amendments to Pilotage Act (645/2010) and (1050/2010)Google Scholar
  25. Port Phillip Sea Pilots (2011a) About passage planning—the need for passage planning. http://www.ppsp.com.au/passage-planning-/About.html. Accessed 1 June 2011
  26. Port Phillip Sea Pilots (2011b) Safety management and passage planning. http://www.ppsp.com.au/passage-planning/safety-management-and-passage-planning.aspx. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  27. Port Skills and Safety (2000) National occupational standards for marine pilots. http://www.saferports.org.uk/files/Marine%20Pilots%20NOS_102008.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2011
  28. Safety Investigation Authority (2007) MS CLAUDIA, grounding off Tornio on 23.10.2007. Investigation Report C2/2007MGoogle Scholar
  29. Trafi (2011) Pilotage routes in Finland. The Finnish Transport Safety Agency. http://www.finlex.fi/data/normit/37340-TRAFI_6793_03_04_01_00_2011_FI_luotsattavat_vaylat.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2012
  30. Transport Canada (2010) Pilotage risk management methodology (PRMM). TP 13741E, 05/2010Google Scholar
  31. Transportation Safety Board of Canada (1995) A safety study of the operational relationship between ship masters/watchkeeping officers and marine pilots. Report number SM9501Google Scholar
  32. Uluscu ÖS, Özbas B, Altiok T, Or I (2009) Risk analysis of the vessel traffic in the Strait of Istanbul. Risk Anal 29(10):1454–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Erve P, Bonnor N (2006) Can the shipping-aviation analogy be used as an argument to decrease the need for Maritime Pilotage? J Navig 59:359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wild RJ (2011) The paradigm and the paradox of perfect pilotage. J Navig 64:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jouni Lappalainen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vappu Kunnaala
    • 1
  • Ulla Tapaninen
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Maritime StudiesUniversity of TurkuKotkaFinland
  2. 2.University of TurkuKotkaFinland

Personalised recommendations