I can tell you with absolute certainty that Pilot Bowyer was giving all the helm and engine orders at the time before and even after Hawke struck. He was not advising anyone. Smith was acting in the role of an observer, and was even asked by Bowyer to let him know if it seemed that Hawke was about to strike.
Hi Samuel,
The Defense of Compulsory Pilotage that tolerated a master to act in the role of an observer was about to end. In 1916, an Admiralty Court ruled out;
«The steamers Gothland and Alexander Shukoff collided in the Thames on Dec. 4, 1916. Both vessels were in charge of compulsory pilots. It appeared that the Gothland was at fault, but her owners put in the defense of compulsory pilotage. Evidence was offered to show that the captain and crew of the Gothland had not rendered the pilot the proper assistance by keeping a sharp lookout and giving the pilot warning of the proximity of the Shukoff. Held, that the defense of compulsory pilotage was not available, since the master and crew of the vessel had not rendered proper assistance to the pilot, and this neglect contributed to the collision.»
The Alexander Shukoff v. The Gothland [1916 H. L.] A. C. 216.
Others concluded that:
«When in charge of a vessel the pilot exercises most of the functions of the master of the vessel.»
Abbott, Merchant Ships and Seamen (14th ed. 1901) 301; Hughes, Admiralty (2d ed. 1920) 36.
When a pilot takes charge of a vessel the master is not relieved from all liability. He must see that the pilot's orders are obeyed and that a good lookout is kept. And if the master and the crew are to blame for any act or omission that contributes to the accident the owners are liable.
The Velasquez (1867, P. C.) L. R. 1 A. C. 494; The Tactician [1907, Adm.] p. 244.
The theory of the American cases is that the vessel herself is liable to a lien according to the maritime law and that the doctrines of common-law agency do not apply. The English rule has been recently changed by statute. The Pilotage Act, 1913, sec. 15. The statute did not apply in the instant case as it did not take effect until January 1, 1918. The rule adopted by the statute, which corresponds to the American rule, would seem to work out the most uniform and satisfactory results.
Nowadays ... not much difference since the reform of the British Pilotage Act effective in 1918:
Compulsory Pilotage Law concedes that the master is in command of a vessel whereas the pilot has the conduct of that vessel. In the Panama Canal, the pilot is in command and has the conduct of the vessel.
Compulsory pilotage means the obligation of a vessel to be under the conduct of a licensed pilot. No person shall have the conduct of a vessel within a compulsory pilotage district unless he is a licensed pilot. A licensed pilot who has the conduct of a vessel is responsible to the master for the safe navigation of the ship.
Command : Holding the ultimate responsibility of a vessel; be responsible for the safe and efficient operation of the ship, its seaworthiness, the safety of navigation, the security for the persons and cargo operations, the crew management, and legal compliance.
Conduct : A regulation having statutory force which provides that a ship is to be conducted by a pilot. It does not mean that vessel is to be navigated under his advice; it means that she must be conducted, her movement controlled or be navigated by a pilot in charge of the safety of the navigation.
Despite the duties and obligations of a pilot, his presence on board does not relieve the master from his duties and obligations against the safety of the vessel. The master shall co-operate entirely with the pilot and maintain an accurate check of the ship’s position and movement. If the master is in any doubt as to the pilot's actions or intentions, he should seek clarification from the pilot. After seeking clarification, if the master still believes on objective grounds that the pilot’s actions are endangering the safety of the vessel, he should immediately take whatever action necessary to reestablish the safety (good luck).
Objective grounds: Objectivity is a concept of being true, independently from individual subjectivity caused by perceptions, emotions, imagination or hallucinations.
The pilot does not act as an advisor to the master but actually navigates the ship. In point of fact the master is then, to a certain extent, an advisor to the pilot when he points out the particularities of the vessel. This factual situation which corresponds to the legal definition of pilot is, in fact, the only realistic solution because if pilots were used merely as advisors, navigation would be very hazardous and at times or be impossible to achieve safely. The fact that the master is actuating the ships controls himself does not mean that he took over the conduct of the vessel; the pilot remains nevertheless in charge for the safety of navigation.
No legal decisions have ever been held that compulsory pilotage was advisory in nature. The pilot as advisor myth persists reinforced by the entry in some log books; «Proceeding to master’s orders and pilot advice». If anyone is merely used as an advisor and not entrusted with the total navigation of the ship, he is certainly not the pilot of that vessel!
Stating that a pilot is «ultimately subordinate to the member of her crew or to the master, although the degree of subordination is less than popularly perceived» demonstrates ounce again, an evident lack of maritime knowledge.
My own adage from experience; «A master reacts whereas a pilot anticipates»!