The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The medical condition of the pilot whose tanker crashed into the Bahamas Oil Refining Company’s (BORCO) jetty, causing $25 million worth of damage, appears to be a key factor in the ongoing dispute threatening Freeport Harbour.

Documents seen by Tribune Business show five Freeport Harbour Company (FHC) pilots urging company management that the same pilot, who they were required to take on board vessels to train and “revalidate his licence”, was medically unfit for the job.

This is because the pilot, who Tribune Business will refer to as ‘Pilot X’, is allegedly undergoing regular dialysis treatment for kidney failure - something the five Freeport Harbour Company pilots argued could compromise safety in the harbour.

Their concerns, though, were rejected by Freeport Harbour Company chief executive, Godfrey Smith, who said he was “fully confident” that ‘Pilot X’ had gained all the necessary medical approvals to perform as a pilot in Freeport Harbour.

This, though, did little to satisfy the concerns harboured by the newly-formed Bahamas Maritime Pilots Association (BMPA), to which many former Freeport Harbour Company and BORCO pilots now belong.

Setting out the Association’s concerns in a February 17, 2014, letter to Glenys Hanna-Martin, minister of transport and aviation, its managing director alleged that the situation “threatens the maritime industry of the Bahamas, and in turn our country’s reputation and its economy directly”.

Referring to several meetings involving the Association and Mrs Hanna-Martin, Erin Ferguson alleged that the situation involving ‘Pilot X’ breached both national and international laws and regulations.

He argued that ‘Pilot Xs’ hiring, and re-training, breached the Freeport Harbour Company Rules and Port Authorities Act when it came to marine pilots being medically/physically fit for duty, plus International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Resolution A960.

Arguing that the situation was “seriously endangering the Freeport Harbour and its customers, cruise passengers and the reputation and economy of this country”, Mr Ferguson told the Minister: “’Pilot X’ has been piloting for many years until he was the pilot responsible for the largest tanker accident in recent history, when he crashed a tanker at a 90 degree angle directly into the jetty at BORCO.

“He has not piloted a vessel at BORCO since that incident, and the results of the investigation found pilot error. ‘Pilot X’, to our knowledge, and it is well known in Grand Bahama, suffers from kidney failure and is on dialysis treatment regularly throughout the week.”

How significant the issue is, and whether it is being overplayed and used as a pretext for the BMPA in achieving its objectives, is unclear. However, Mr Ferguson’s concerns were backed by international marine pilots organisations and others, according to documents seen by Tribune Business.

The BORCO accident occurred on May 25, 2012, and Freeport Harbour Company’s pilots were informed that ‘Pilot X’ would be training with them for the revalidation of his licence via a January 21, 2014, e-mail from the company’s operations manager, Ellison Charles Rolle.

This prompted a February 10, 2014, letter from the five Freeport Harbour Company pilots to Mr Smith, alleging that this amounted to “a clear violation of Freeport Harbour Company Rules and Regulations”.

The five, headed by Kendall Williamson, who is now the BMPA’s president, said: “We have all observed ‘Pilot X’ looking very ill on the job, with pale skin coloration and extreme fatigue while on the job........”

Calling for a meeting between themselves and Mr Smith, they wrote via e-mail that until that happened “we will not be prepared on any level to train or accompany ‘Pilot X’ aboard any ships as pilots of Freeport Harbour Company”.

They denied, though, that this amounted to a withdrawal of labour or a strike, something the pilots said was forbidden under the Port Authority Act.

Mr Smith responded by phone the next day, promising to investigate the matter. But his request for ‘Pilot X’ to continue riding on-board with them was rejected by the five pilots.

The Freeport Harbour Company chief executive then responded by e-mail on February 12, 2014, stating that he was not asking, but telling, them to train “Pilot X’ and that “you do not have the authority to act contrary to legitimate instructions issued”.

Mr Smith wrote: “Having reviewed the hiring records of ‘Pilot X’, I am fully confident that he has met medical approval for the function for which he was employed. ‘Pilot X’s’ physician is acutely clear of his medical condition, his duties and his ability to perform the same.”

Then, concluding by wielding the ‘big stick’, Mr Smith added: “Finally, my advice to you Messrs Johnson, Thomas, Albury and McBride is to very carefully read, not only Freeport Harbour Company’s procedures regarding pilotage operations and training, but also your employment contracts which define the basis for conduct and duty.”

The five pilots, though, replied by warning that they “simply cannot yield on this matter because of the grave liability and safety concerns that arise. We cannot knowingly endanger the harbour as the pilots with the duty to protect the harbour”.

“We simply cannot compromise the safety of the waters of this country because Freeport Harbour Company refuses to fully investigate a matter which appears fairly obvious and simple to discover,” the five pilots wrote.

“He [Pilot X] is an outright danger to himself and any person on the vessel, and the vessel itself.”

Taking up this theme, Mr Ferguson’s letter to Mrs Hanna-Martin on February 17, 2014, said the International Maritime Pilots Association (IMPA) had backed the BMPA’s position that someone on kidney dialysis was unfit to be piloting ships.

“To allow such a pilot to pilot ships would be direct non-compliance with IMO Resolution A960,” Mr Ferguson warned. “This is an offense for which the Bahamas can be cited for the record at IMO meetings, and this can possibly impact our reputation in the maritime industry and, most importantly, have major repercussions for our ship registry with the Bahamas Maritime Authority.

“IMPA has asked us to contact relevant government authorities and the Bahamas Maritime Authority (BMA) to have this matter addressed immediately before it has to be addressed at IMO meetings.”

A February 27, 2014, e-mail from Mr Ferguson to Nick Cutmore, the IMPA’s secretary-general, disclosed that Mrs Hanna-Martin had requested an opinion from the latter as to whether persons undergoing kidney dialysis could work as marine pilots.

Responding a day later, Mr Cutmore said: “We were very surprised to hear of a pilot being hired and licensed whilst on dialysis...... I don’t need to tell you about the physical effort of ascending the side of a ship, maybe 20 metres from the waterline, and then possibly having to climb a similar distance from the main deck to the bridge, thereafter immediately assuming conduct of navigation of a vessel.’

In a follow-up e-mail, Mr Cutmore added on March 3, 2014, that both the UK and French marine pilots’ chairs had said no one would be allowed to work while on dialysis. They would only return once medical recovery was confirmed.