A common misconception in ship operations is that the Master must always be physically present on the bridge when a pilot is onboard. The reality, as clearly defined in the STCW Code, is more nuanced and places significant responsibility on the entire bridge team.

Here’s a key takeaway from the STCW Code, Chapter VIII:

The pilot’s expertise does not relieve the Master or the Officer of the Watch (OOW) from their ultimate duties for the ship’s safety. The framework is built on communication, cooperation, and continuous monitoring.

So, where is the Master required to be?

The regulation wisely does not mandate the Master’s constant physical presence on the bridge. Instead, it empowers the OOW with a critical protocol:

“If in any doubt as to the pilot’s actions or intentions, the OOW shall make clarification from the pilot and, if doubt still exists, shall notify the master immediately and take whatever action is necessary before the master arrives.”

The decision for the Master to leave the bridge is therefore a matter of professional, situational judgement. It is based on:

· The Master’s confidence in the pilot and the OOW.
· The complexity of the navigational segment.
· The overall bridge team dynamics.

This highlights a crucial aspect of Bridge Resource Management (BRM): the OOW is not a passive observer but an active manager and a safety net. The Master must foster a culture where the OOW feels empowered to question, clarify, and—without hesitation—call the Master the moment doubt arises.

In a nutshell:

· OOW’s Duty: Active monitoring and the courage to speak up.
· Master’s Duty: Strategic oversight and the judgement to be where they are most needed, while always being immediately available.

It’s not about where the Master has to be, but about ensuring a robust safety system where roles are clear, communication is constant, and the chain of command acts decisively.

What are your thoughts on this balance of responsibility?

Bon voyage