> Legally, the master has full responsibility for the safe navigation of their vessel, even when a pilot is on board. If they have clear grounds that the pilot may jeopardize the safety of navigation, they can relieve the pilot from their duties and ask for another pilot, or, if not required to have a pilot on board, navigate the vessel without one. In every case, during the time passed aboard for operation, the pilot will remain under the master's authority, and always out of the "ship's command chain." The pilot remains aboard as an important and indispensable part of the bridge team. Only in transit of the Panama Canal does the pilot have full responsibility for the navigation of the vessel.
You might have misunderstood the difference between controlling the ship and commanding it. The Panama Canal Authority pilot controls navigation and maneuvering to get through the canal but the captain is still in command of the vessel and ultimately responsible for it.
Canal accidents cost so much that they're each individually investigated and insurance companies fight over who is liable. Sometimes it's the pilot's fault and ACP's insurance pays out, sometimes it's the shipping company's insurance, and sometimes they split the cost.
Is that just a Panama Canal thing? Or should I find better documentaries?