Does a marine pilot ever truly take "the Conn" of a merchant vessel?

If you believe they do, you might be falling for a dangerous myth that could cost you your career and your ship.

In this episode, we explore the featured DeepDraft article, "Command vs 'Conn': Why the Master's Authority Is Never Shared," to separate naval watchstanding tradition from merchant shipping reality.

While navies frequently delegate tactical control, international maritime law insists that the concept of the "Conn" simply does not exist for merchant vessels.

We examine the strict legal frameworks—including IMO Resolution A.960, the STCW Code, and SOLAS Chapter V—which confirm that the Master's command is absolute, indivisible, and non-transferable, and that the pilot is strictly on board to advise.

For the maritime lawyers and shipping executives tuning in, we also untangle the complex web of vicarious liability during compulsory pilotage. We break down the unique UK Pilotage Act exemptions and the landmark Cavendish case, revealing how pilotage organizations are legally shielded from massive damage claims—leaving the shipowner to foot the bill when things go wrong.⏳ Episode Chapters:

• (0:00) Intro: The Dangerous Myth of "The Conn"
• (1:15) Maritime Law Explained: SOLAS, STCW & IMO Res A.960
• (3:00) Naval Tradition vs. Merchant Shipping Reality
• (5:20) Vicarious Liability & Compulsory Pilotage
• (7:00) The UK Pilotage Act & The Cavendish Case Precedent
• (9:30) Bridge Resource Management & Avoiding "Divided Authority"

• Read the full article on The DeepDraft: "Command vs 'Conn': Why the Master's Authority Is Never Shared".
• Follow the podcast for more deep dives into maritime operations, port state liabilities, and bridge resource management.

🔗 Links & Resources: https://thedeepdraft.com/2025/09/18/command-vs-conn-why-the-masters-authority-is-never-shared/