Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

quires that a stern light be displayed (rule No. 3 d); and that making motorboats subject to the same lighting requirements when towing as other steam vessels towing (rule No. 12). The elimination of the "end on rule" now contained in rule 18 is highly desirable. This requires vessels meeting end on or nearly end on to make a port to port passing. In numerous instances, however, where this situation arises on the river, particularly in the vicinity of bends, it may be impossible for a down-bound vessel, because of the slide produced by the current, to take the point side. The current sets the down-bound boat into the bend and away from the point. An attempt to make a port to port passing under these circumstances would inevitably result in a collision.

H. R. 3350 also increased the penalty which may be imposed for violation of the pilot rules from $50 up to $500. It seems to me that the present fine is inadequate and that the increased fine may serve as a deterrent which will prevent violations. I should note also that in many of the rules words are added whose purpose is to clarify the meaning of the present rule. The all-important thing is that pilots understand what they are required to do under the rules. Unless they do so accidents will result.

We who operate on the western rivers believe that the changes contained in H. R. 3350 will, if adopted, provide a better, more workable set of rules. The cutting down of marine accidents and casualties which today cost the industry heavy sums annually will make for steadier employment, more efficient operation, and cheaper transportation costs. It will enable the water industry to compete more effectively with other forms of transportation. Thus, for these reasons, I heartily approve H. R. 3350 and hope for its early passage.

Senator REED. The next witness?

Mr. THOMPSON. Capt. Ralph Clark, secretary and business agent, National Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, St. Louis, Mo. Senator REED. All right, Captain Clark. Will you come forward, please?

STATEMENT OF CAPT. RALPH CLARK, SECRETARY AND BUSINESS
AGENT, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES, AND
PILOTS, ST. LOUIS, MO.

Captain CLARK. Senator, I have here a prepared statement.
Senator REED. How many copies of this statement do you have?
Captain CLARK. Two, sir.

Senator REED. Will you let the reporter have one?
We will print your statement in full.

views here as tersely as you can?

Will you summarize your

Captain CLARK. Well, I would like to say that I am very much in favor, and our members are very much in favor, of the passage of this bill,

Senator REED. You heard Captain Farwell's statement?

Captain CLARK. I did, sir.

Senator REED. Are you in agreement with that?

Captain CLARK. I am in agreement with that. There is one other point that has not been brought up, that the opposition will bring up, and that, I think, has merit. That will be found on page 7, on lines 9 and 10, in subparagraph (d). The way it reads:

At or near the stern, and higher than the side lights, where they can best be seen, two red lights in a vertical line, one over the other, not less than 3 feet apart, of such a character as to be visible from aft for a distance of at least 2 miles, and so screened as not to be visible forward of the beam.

I would like to point out that the same objection holds to those that held to the paragraph on page 8 that Captain Farwell spoke of.

By having to have those higher than the side lights, on the modern river towboat, you have this situation: The side lights are on the

top of the pilothouse. And often these boats, in some areas particularly, are built to be able to just go under a bridge. By having to have those stern lights higher than the side lights, that would mean that we would have a mast up that would keep us from getting under bridges. And I believe it serves no practical purpose. I believe that they are just as easily seen, perhaps more easily seen, if they are a little bit lower.

Senator REED. What change would you suggest on page 7?

Captain CLARK. I would suggest, sir, that we strike out "and higher than the side lights."

Senator REED. You would strike that out.

Senator MYERS. In other words, "at or near the stern, where they can best be seen," is the way it would read.

Senator REED. This is Senator Myers, the maritime authority of this committee.

Captain FARWELL. I might say, if I may interrupt, that I omitted that point. But I agree fully. The Coast Guard would go along with that, too.

Senator REED. Captain Farwell, what was that page on which you' made another suggestion?

Captain FARWELL. That was lines 9 and 10 on page 13.

Senator REED. He would cut that out. He said they cannot tell the difference anyhow.

Go right ahead, sir.

Captain CLARK. In the interests of making this short, I believe this bill is a very good thing, and it is not hastily conceived. It is a product of, oh, three and a half years' work of everybody connected with the industry, the Coast Guard, the pilots themselves, the operators, and owners of the boats.

And while, as in anything like that, each side has had to give a little bit and take a little bit, I believe the bill as it stands, with the exceptions that we have noted, is a very good bill. I believe that it will cut down on accidents, and I believe it will make for more efficient operation and less lost time. And I think there is no question that over a period of years it will save lives. There is no way to tell how many lives. There is no way to tell how many might be lost. But I believe by adding to the safety of the present navigation, it will be a very good thing.

Something that, perhaps, you have reason to know, or perhaps you do not, is that this industry is increasing by leaps and bounds, and the conditions that we had a few years ago, conditions that were satisfactory, are no longer satisfactory, because the traffic is too thick. The rules that worked all right then, when there were only a few vessels, and when they were mostly packet boats that were highly maneuverable and easy to stop, do not always take care of the situation that we have today, where the boats are getting very thick, and where often we have as much as 12 or 14 thousand tons in one tow in heavy current conditions. The very nature of it makes it very slow and awkward and hard to handle.

So we need a maximum of room and a maximum of understanding, back and forth, between two pilots before they get close enough to each other so that they have plenty of time to maneuver correctly.

I believe this bill will help in that situation, and will help to promote that understanding.

Now, I would like to say that I understand you will get some objection on this three-whistle rule as an attention signal. That opinion that you will be given will be an honest opinion, but my honest opinion is in the other direction. I believe it is a very fine thing. Because under any circumstances when you hear those three blasts of the whistle, you always know what it means. You always know there is a vessel there, calling attention to the fact that he is in your way, or might be in your way.

Under any of the uses, it always means essentially one thing. If he is below a point where you can see him, he blows three whistles. That means, "I am below here." If he is in a fog, where you can't see him, he blows the whistle, and that means exactly the same thing, "I am here; watch out for me.

وو

If he is coming out from a dock, he blows three whistles, and it means the same thing. It means, "I am here. Keep your eyes open. Watch for me."

So I think there is no confusion with that three-whistle signal at all, and I know that is the opinion of the very great percentage of our pilots, and I believe that it will be a very good thing.

If I could point out some situations there, I believe it would show to your satisfaction that this will eliminate some confusion. It is, of course, merely a matter of time as to whether it will be interesting enough to you for you to wish to hear that.

Senator REED. I believe we do not need that.

Does that conclude your statement?

Captain CLARK. That does, sir.

(The prepared statement of Captain Clark is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF RALPH F. CLARK TO COMMITTEE OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ON H. R. 3350

My name is Ralph F. Clark. I am the financial secretary-treasurer and business agent of the National Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America, Local No. 28 at St. Louis, Mo. This organization is composed of licensed deck officers operating on all navigable waters of the western rivers system. Our total membership consists of approximately 325 men, about 210 of whom are licensed as master pilots. I am attending this hearing in the interests of this organization and at the request of our board of directors and our members to express their strong approval of H. R. 3350, as well as my own.

Before setting forth the reasons why I am in favor of the bill, I would like to make a brief statement as to my experience. For approximately 16 years I have worked on various river vessels on the Mississippi River system in capacities varying from deckhand to mastor pilot. For the past 10 years I have been employed on western rivers as pilot and master pilot. My pilot's license includes the Mississippi River from Memphis, Tenn., to Cairo, Ill., and from St. Louis Mo., to the head of navigation at Minneapolis, Minn.; the Ohio River from its mouth to Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Illinois River from its mouth to Lockport, Ill. I have served as pilot on many vessels of various types and in various trades. A major portion of my career as pilot has been spent on vessels handling tows of approximately 10 tons.

In my opinion the major fault of the present pilot rules and regulations lies in the fact that they are very difficult to understand and interpret. Under the present circumstances two pilots of long experience and who profess to have a good working knowledge of these laws may honestly differ in their opinion as to the interpretation to be placed on some clauses contained in the law as it now stands. I believe that H. R. 3350, if it becomes law, will do a very great amount of good in this regard. Many of the sections contained in this bill do not actually change the present regulations. Rather, they are designed to add to the present wording or to clarify some portion that is now difficult to understand.

Some other portions of this bill do change the present regulations. It should be remembered at this point that the present rules were adopted in 1864 and that river navigation has completely changed since that time. The type of vessels and the nature of the river itself are totally different; only the rules designed for navigation in a different period still remain. The proposed bill attempts to bring up to date certain portions of the rules which have been productive of serious collisions because of the fact that they are not adapted to our present-day method of operation.

Under

Of this type, the right-angle rule is perhaps the best illustration. this present rule the vessel which has another vessel on her port bow has the right-of-way. This vessel is required to hold her course, the other vessel being required to stay out of the way. The only types of vessels on the western rivers which go from bank to bank are ferries, which are light, relatively maneuverable craft. On the other hand, upstream and downstream traffic, which constitutes over 95 percent of the total trade on the river, is handled by large, bulky tows which average over 1,000 feet in over-all length, the pilot of which is performing his duties from the pilothouse on a towboat perhaps 1,000 feet back from the head of the tow.

It can easily be seen that a tow descending the river, particularly in a portion of the river with heavy current, is extremely difficult to maneuver and is difficult and often impossible to stop. The present rule would require the downbound tow to stay out of the way of a ferry which was on her starboard. In this very situation, however, it would be impossible as a practical matter for the tow to do so.

The proposed bill attempts to deal with this problem realistically in rule No. 19 by providing that "a steam vessel descending a river and towing another vessel or vessels shall be deemed to have the right-of-way over any steam vessel crossing the river."

Of course, in 1864, more than 60 years before towboats made their apearance on the western rivers, this problem could not have been visualized. But it is for exactly reasons such as these that rules, however well advised they may have been at the time of their enactment, require modification to keep them abreast of changing conditions.

Another decided improvement which the proposed bill would enact is that regarding the simplification of whistle signals. Any pilot could testify to the fact that the present whistle system, as contained in the present rules, is completely inadequate.

For example, there are three different types of whistle signals: Short, prolonged, and long blasts. A short blast is one which lasts only a second or 2 seconds in duration; a prolonged blast about 4 to 6 seconds; and a long blast approximately 8 to 10 seconds. Each of these signals is intended to convey a different meaning. The short blasts are passing signals; that is, they indicate whether a vessel desires to direct its course to port or to starboard. The prolonged blast is a fog signal; and the long blast is used by vessels leaving a dock or nearing a bend in the river where visibility may be impaired.

The trouble with the present rules is that a 1- to 2-second blast cannot be heard at a distance of half to 1 mile where passing signals are normally exchanged. For this reason pilots constantly blow much longer blasts as passing signals. I would say that they average about 10 to 15 seconds.

However, under the present rules a blast of such duration would probably be construed by the pilot on an approaching vessel as being a bend signal. It can readily be seen, therefore, that confusion could and does result, one pilot mistaking a passing signal for a bend signal or vice versa.

The proposed bill would eliminate this source of confusion by making the duration of the whistle signal unimportant. The number and not the duration of the blasts would be all-important. The only requirement would be that the blast sounded be a distinct signal of whatever duration. Thus the meaning of the blast would depend on the number blown rather than, as at present, depending upon not only the number but also the duration. Although of course it is impossible to indicate how many collisions have resulted from confusion of the type mentioned above, there have certainly been numerous cases where collisions or near collisions have resulted from misunderstanding originating in the length of the blast sounded by a pilot.

Another important change is that contained in rule No. 3 a and b, which increases the minimum visibility of side lights from 2 to 3 miles. Navigating at night where the presence and angle of approach of another vessel can be determined only by sighting her side lights (in a period of large, bulky tows),

it is particularly necessary that the pilot have as much advance notice of the presence and position of another vessel as possible. This safety requirement is highly desirable.

I have already noted the length and unwieldy nature of a large tow, the type in common use. Equally as important, however, is the fact that the rivers over which these vessels operate are relatively narrow and have continually winding channels of relatively shallow depths. This means that when two vessels are approaching each other from opposite directions, they are operating in cramped quarters and their courses with reference to each other are constantly varying as they approach. The question of whether they can more successfully make a port-to-port or starboard-to-starboard passing is one which must depend upon the conditions existing at the time in the particular section of the river at which they meet. Thus a swift current, wind conditions, or other local factors may make one or another of the methods of passage more desirable. The present rule, however, requires two vessels approaching end-on to make a port-to-port passage.

The new rule eliminates this requirement and leaves the matter up to the discretion of the pilots. Inasmuch as whistle signals must be exchanged in either case and since agreement can as readily be obtained upon a starboard-to-starboard passing as upon a port-to-port passing, it seems to me desirable that the pilots should have this discretion and be permitted to make the type of passing which, under all the circumstances, is in their judgment the one most likely to insure safety.

I have discussed this matter with a large number of pilots, both in and out of our organization-men whose licenses cover the Mississippi and the various tributaries, including the Ohio River. Of course, a few have voiced opposition to certain portions of the bill. The criticism has been, however, of a vague type which seems in part based upon resistance to change of any kind and in part upon the heavier fine imposed by section 4233 B for violation. This opposition, however, emanates from a comparatively few pilots, whereas the overwhelming majority have supported the change as being designed to provide clearer rules, more definite in their meaning easier to understand, and adapted to present-day operating conditions. It is our feeling that safe navigation would be promoted by their adoption and that we would be benefited thereby just as would the entire industry and the public generally.

On behalf of the association and myself, I earnestly hope that H. R. 3350 will receive favorable consideration by this committee.

Senator REED. Will you indicate your next witness, Mr. Thompson? Mr. THOMPSON. These are all of our listed witnesses. We have three other parctical pilots who would like to be heard. But I understand that Captain Griffith, who is in opposition to some of these provisions, is anxious to get back to Pittsburgh; and with the consent of the committee, it is agreeable to us that they present their case. Senator REED. All right, sir. We will hear the views of the opposition.

STATEMENT OF W. H. GRIFFITH, SECRETARY, MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 25, PITTSBURGH, PA.

Mr. GRIFFITH. I have a prepared statement I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman.

My name is W. H. Griffith. I am secretary and business representative of the National Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America, Local 25, with offices at 649 Wabash Building, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Senator REED. This is Senator Myers, and you are one of his constituents, and you want to be careful what you say.

Mr. GRIFFITH. That is all right with me, sir.

Senator MYERS. You go right ahead.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, I can briefly state my position on this thing.

« AnteriorContinuar »