A maritime company faces a 188,000 TL fine for not reporting malfunctioning VDR and echo sounder systems during a vessel's docking operation.
During a ship's berthing operation in İzmit Bay, an administrative fine of approximately 188,000 TL was imposed on the pilotage service company for failing to report that the VDR (Voyage Data Recorder) and echo sounder systems on board were not functioning. The basis for the decision was cited as the obligation to timely report irregularities that pose risks during service.
Sanction overshadowed by trainee debate
Recently, there have been disagreements between the administration and local practices regarding the internship application of pilot captains and the initiation of trainees in the field in İzmit Bay; it was reported that this issue has created serious tension in the sector. At a time when these discussions were particularly heated, the arrival of a high-value administrative fine decision triggered a separate debate over 'timing.'
Some figures in the sector express that such sanctions may be implemented more frequently in the future; hence, comments that the administration has 'drawn its weapon of punishment' have become widespread. These assessments reflect the perception formed in the sector rather than the legal nature of the decision.
What is the reason for the penalty?
According to the administrative sanction document, the reason for the fine is the failure to immediately verbally and subsequently in writing report to the port authority that the VDR and echo sounder devices on board were not functioning during a ship's berthing. The penalty amount is stated as 188,235 TL in the document.
While the document may be read as addressing an individual, it appears that the administrative action has been issued in the name of the pilotage service company.
The 'strange' point in the sector: Can the pilot captain always notice this?
At the center of the debate is a very practical question: Can the pilot captain notice that the VDR is truly not functioning in every incident?
Maritime circles emphasize that the determination of 'not working' on the VDR side may not always be understood through an instantaneous observation from the bridge; sometimes, technical checks, system records, or internal reporting by the ship's crew may clarify the situation. Therefore, before the assessment of 'did not report,' the question of whether the malfunction was actually detected by the pilot captain comes to the forefront.
While the document emphasizes 'not reported,' it is seen that there are limited technical details on how the malfunction was detected by the pilot captain.
Why has the 'weapon of punishment' debate grown?
For part of the sector, the issue is not just about a single penalty decision. When read alongside the trainee tension experienced during the same period, there are those who strengthen the belief that the decision carries a 'message.' Some interpret this directly as a 'reading of intent,' while others take a more cautious approach.
However, the common ground is this: While the safety sensitivity in a critical operation like berthing is understood, the imposition of a high-value sanction based on a technical deficiency that is difficult to detect has enlarged the discussion on 'application standards.'
How will the process proceed?
There is a right to appeal in such administrative fines, and ultimately, the judiciary has the final say. The sector's eyes are on this: If the 'detection/possibility of detection by the pilot captain' is discussed with technical data during the appeal process, a framework may emerge that could serve as a precedent for similar cases.
Source: SeaNews Türkiye
