Minutes of the RVTEC 2002 Meeting
12-14 November 2002
Honolulu, Hawaii
Compiled by Steve Poulos and Dale Chayes
To download a copy of these minutes click: <rvtmi211.pdf>
II. Attendance List
III. NSF Report (A. Shor)
IV. ONR Report (J Freitag)
V. UNOLS Report (A. DeSilva)
VI. Scientific Equipment Inventory Database (A. DeSilva)
VII. Post Cruise Assessment Summary (M. Prince)
VIII. Recommendations for Shipboard Science Inspection (J. Freitag)
IX. INMARSAT F77 (V. Schmidt)
X. RoadNet (W. Sutherland)
XI. Ship to Ship Wireless (T. Martin)
XII. Operation SWAB (J. Happell)
XIII. Fleet Renewal Report (M. Prince)
XIV. ARRV Presentation (S. Hartz)
XV. R/V KILO MOANA Report (S. Poulos)
Day Two Reports:
XVII. Next Generation Wire Report (D. Chayes)
XVIII. Wire Designs (R. Findley)
XIX. NERC – Safe Working Load Procedures (M. Prince)
XX. MATE Report (D. Chayes)
XXI. SeaNet Report (D. Chayes)
XXII. Isotope Presentation (W. Sutherland)
XXIII. Undulating Vehicles (T. Deering)
XXIV. R/V REVELLE EM120 Installation (W. Sutherland)
XXV. EWING Hydrosweep (D. Chayes)
Day Three Reports:
XXVI. INMARTECH 2002 (B. Walden)
XXVII. Phased Array ADCP Presentation (J. Hummon)
XXVIII. Precision Navigation for Dynamic Positioning (D. Chayes)
XXIX. Differential GPS via GcGPS (B. Martin)
XXX. On-line Resources Report (T. Wilson)
NSF Report – Sandy Shor
Questions to Sandy Shor
Money from Code 32.
Work by JJMA and NAVSEA
TAG(two, 66 and work vessel), Regional, Ocean-class SMRs
Swath and mono-hull were only realistic contending designs
Report goes to Congress from Navy (Cohen, CNO)
· Fleet Renewal Costs
Regional class estimate $25M. Probably NSF funded. The $25M would keep the decision in the NSF OCE directorate.
Ocean class $65-70M. ONR likely to fund.
Navy has draft schedule that shows the ocean class vessels spread out.
· Good year, lots of work in Antarctic, both Polars were busy.
· Working on how to support the old (25 years) Polar Class breakers. Planning a major midlife (~$200M for each).
UNOLS annual meeting – Elections,
Discussion during Major Agenda Items (Medical Stds, MikeP, Woody S)
RVOC was at MLML
Stewart Lammerdin represented RVTEC.
Joint meetings will be arranged as needed. Interval of perhaps three to five years.
ISM impacts
Medical requirements (from NOAA, T.J. Edwards) USCG has occasionally used this form (P. McGillivary) USCG will probably got to Form 93.
Updated Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS) will be ready in 2003
Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC)
Realized that FOFC does not adequately address Observatories, both for response (science) and for maintenance. Atkinson will bring up the potential impact on ship utilization at the FOFC meeting this week.
FIC would like to debrief Kilo Moana science parties to assess capability of the swath vessel. Also how well the cruise fit the vessel.
Ship Scheduling
Ships are very full
Challenges are the same (ROV scheduling, mult-ship programs, weather windows)
DESSC
Jason II has entered service
All upgrades are complete?
DESSC meeting December 5th at AGU
WHOI will report on conceptual design for 6,500m replacement for Alvin
Expeditionary planning
Shallow water submergence report
How can RVTEC participate in the CREATION of draft effort such as RVSS and Security committees from other UNOLS
o Much discussion
o Mike Prince follow on with regard to RVOC – RVTEC cooperation ref Safety standards. Along with Dale Chayes (Chair) propose liaison to RVOC – RVTEC member added to Safety committee, Security Committee
o What will NSF pay for us to do so that we can provide better support for the types of cruises that have not gone so well in the past.
o Presentation of “amplified or interpreted” NSF proposal guidelines of what technical support will do. Comments now are very timely as there is a task at NSF to revise these time lines.
o Comments on procedures , Steven Hartz, Bill Martin
o History of NSF science inspections.
o The INSURV inspections for Navy ships are mandated by Congress. They brought 19 inspectors. This inspection is only to find problems. Does not evaluate science needs.
o NSF-contracted inspections don’t have the background to do science inspections.
o Outline of goals of an inspection.
o ONR needs to have some kind of an inspection procedure.
o Discussion of John’s strawman proposal.
o Potential to do in collaboration w/ INSURV.
o
Moved huge
files over multi-mile links. Multibeam, terrascan and seismic data.
Q: Do you have a sample (salted) test that can be used to explain the difference between swab and swipe tests?
A: No. It would be a good thing to do.
Q: Sandy (SIO) had some questions about getting “splits” funded.
A: No problem.
Q: Do you get the same accuracy if the operators do the swab test themselves?
A: Yes.
Q: How long does it take to do the results?
A: High quality results take several days after the samples get back to their lab.
Q: Can you provide training when you make a ship visit?
A: Yes, training is no problem.
Q: Wouldn’t it make more sense to do this instead of a swab?
A: They test for different things.
Q: What tests to you do?
A: Only C14 and Tritium.
Q: Should we ask you to come of if it’s other than C14 and Tritium?
A: Yes. They can see Sulfer35 by differentiating by difference in half life.
Q: Can you explain the current limits and their evolution? The limits have recently been changed. Ostland.
A: Don’t have the details here. Background limits have changed.
Q: Can we get the background of the levels documented?
A: Yes
Q: Is there a decree that isotope work only be done in vans? What about small ships doing it on deck?
A: No. There is some discussion in the safety standards and it is a strong recommendation.
What can we do to move forward:
1) Review the current levels and procedures
2) Document the history of how we got to where we are now
3) Standardize reporting (documenting) the procedures used by the various operators with regard to frequency of tests, who does the tests, etc.
4) Community review of what might be changed with representation from the operators.
5) Community education.
o Woody Sutherland, SIO.
o Ship ops does everything in detail.
o Science changes from day to day and cruise to cruise so it would be difficult, even for routine operations to define operations and then do it the same every time.
o There are two science pages in the ISM manual:
- before any science ops, persons (Captain, Chief Sci, technicians (ship and science) will come up with and agreed upon procedure. These agreements are ad hoc and temporary.
- There is no real change in the way that science is done except that everyone has to be there.
- woodys@sio.ucsd.edu will email those pages
- SIO does not have their ISM online.
Q: have you seen any changes in the way things are done?
A: Yes, we are more uniform. The agreement event (not the procedure) is documented and changes are documented. Everyone (crew members and technicians) are more aware of what they have agreed to do.
o Bill Martin, UW,
o document SOP for over-the-side,
o have SOP for stern using A-Frame
o Moving from paper style to Electronic online form for ISM.
o Tried to model from SIO but our procedures are quite different. They do document their standard over the side and over the stern operations (CTD, coring, etc.)
o Unique science operations they sit down with all the parties involved (eg Jason group, chief scientists, captain, chief engineer) and go over the procedures. After review these are submitted as ISM documentation.
o Science briefing then requires that the captain requires that everyone signs and understands. Their first time around was a very cumbersome event. First time took four hours for first science meeting. The new (current) event takes about two hours including exposure suits and ship tour.
o Some “standard” and most specialty operations require participation from science party members. Participants must sign off on these procedures.
o There has been some impact on their operations but no show-stoppers. Things do take longer. It takes a day or two at least before programs get in the flow of how things are done on the Thompson. Some simple things continue with people on deck with sandals!
o The procedure has to be repeated on every leg. Each cruise generates at least a 2” ring binder in case they get inspected. They intend to transition to a signed off electronic version. The idea was for an ABS ship maintenance package.
o
o Jon Albert, WHOI–
o discuss WHOI Atlantis, Knorr, Oceanus
o oncoming winches being documented with regard to breaking strength for wire etc.
o have available mechanical documentation to allow for over-the-side operations.
o Wet weight handling gear – foreign port issues. Has been helpful (ISM) and troubling at times.
o Their procedure is more or less the same for over the side operations. Have brought the smaller ships into compliance.
o They have had some issues with over-the-side (wet handling) handling systems that have come on board with science parties, particularly with older equipment.
o The WHOI procedure manuals are online and sent to science parties.
o There has been some anxiety on the part of the crew about being the “police” for enforcing the rules.
o Comment: In many situations, these regulations don’t apply very well. This tends to interfere with doing anything slightly novel which significantly raises the hassle factor.
Q: What happens when there is an “issue” that could raise serious safety issues.
Q: Do the insurers know or adjust the rates for different approaches?
o John Deibold (LDEO) by email
o
At worst, ISM is a
bureaucratic millstone; at best, a basic and essential tool for safety and
QC. ISM's implementation involves the
amassing and codification of manuals and procedures for maintenance and
operation of equipment. During this process, we discovered that much of our
documentation was in disarray. Straightening this up was tedious, but
worthwhile. The really hard part,
however, comes in the day-to-day integration of the ISM approach with science.
o None of our technicians was hired on the basis of bookkeeping ability, and we are finding it difficult to stay current with the identification and filing of NCRs. It is much easier to simply attack a problem and solve it, at least for the time being, even though historical recording, corporate memory, and proper resolution of most problems would be better handled within the ISM procedure. Maybe we need an additional technician, whose sole responsibility would be to deal with these things. [How about it, Sandy?]
o Marc Willis: We had a new aluminum rad van. Users love it. Had some quirks. One major problem is that they are not stiff enough and they do warp if put down on uneven surfaces and then the doors don’t open.
o Rich: Had a proposal for a “hydro” van for salinities and dissolved oxygen. Not for use by scientist but by their technical group directly and had some very special goals. They were told to use a group purchase van and then modify it them selves. It may turn out to cost more than originally proposed.
o Woody: We got a specialized van and by working with Delaware got nearly everything they wanted.
o Jon: Looking for a small chemical storage van. SIO has a 6’x8’ industrial hazmat container.
§ Desire for electronic version of calibration factors for automatic input to SeaBird software.
§ It seems that SeaBird might be amenable to doing something if we as a community were to make a common request.
§ Discussion of approach which covers the cases of automatic re-formatting of calibration data for use with SeaBird (and other software), which contains all of the appropriate metadata.
§ Possibly use XML coding to allow re-formatting for insertion into data bases, creation of printable (PDF) documents, and automatic reformatting into SBE software.
§ Woody Sutherland will follow-up with a “design” that we could ask SeaBird to implement.
o
Tim Deering
(U Del) Cape Henlopen replacement
o There was an inspection for entry into the UNOLS ship. Came from the same folks that do the NSF ship inspections.
o Science outfitting folks from different people at SOES Shipboard Technical Assistance Group, Hawaii Mapping Research Group, and Research Computing Facility.
o Self-noise is very dependent upon clean propellers.
o Pilots were nervous about going through the canal in the dark so did a daytime transit.
o Data philosophy: raw and processed data available everywhere through the network. They did not install all of the science cable raceways that UH thought they had asked for so they put some fibers in power raceways. There was supposed to be a two foot air gap between science raceways and power cables.
o The yard gave them racks but they weren’t adequate and were replaced with four point racks.
o They log in distributed Linux boxes and broadcast everything on the ‘net.
o They got 9600 baud analog modem to work over their Furuno Felcom INMARSAT B. They were not able to get HSD to work (yet?). Have Iridium for backup.
o Had deployment issues (due to vessel motion) in the place where the CTD system was originally install. Are planning on moving it to the starboard mid-ships.
o There is a residual problem reconciling the sound speed values provided by CTD, lowered velocimeter, XBTs and velocimeter mounted in the sea-water intake.
o Installed an SBE-38 in-hull temperature probe coupled into the data system.
o Knudsen subbottom. 4x4 Massa 1075A transducers. No welding. Used silicon pad on hull to couple the transducer arrays into the hull. They will (eventually) weld a box in place.
o Cross-decked LaCoste and Romberg gravimeter S33 after rebuild.
o Many of the vendor-supplied fiber connectors were broken. They spend two person weeks fixing them
Discussion of handouts for quality review
RVTEC Meeting Locations (future – be thinking about it)
Break Out session Order??, Will do in series, O2 and Scintillation are short
define, investigate develop, choose a solution, model, prototype….
9:42am Continue wire discussion (Dale Chayes leading discussion)
(See Power Point slides)
Possible Process for discussion
10:38am Mike Prince – British UK procedures for wire/cable use –
How many volunteers (~6 people)
Repeat interval ~ every two years
Per ship event is ~5-10 days per person.
The design and charge to the inspector process
Maybe not call it an inspection?
John would like email input for his six ships that have no science inspection presently. Used to be done by Dinsmore during INSURV.
Bill M: worried about being “graded” during inspection.l
Sandy: Current NSF inspection cannot be changed. Best option would be for ONR to do a prototype that could be evaluated. We are encouraged to pursue John’s idea.
Steve P: Based on the effort that they just did on the KM (UNOLS entry inspection) science inspections could be a good thing.
Marc W: John has been taking copious and accurate notes. If he were to circulate a short statement of his plan based on our discussions here we would then get comments back.
Sandy: WHOI and SIO should provide their feedback to John.
John: will update and circulate his notion. Hopes for comments.
Comments (Tim Deering ) from scientists good
Comments(Bill Martin) – a good interview is key, candidates were bent toward Marine biology instead of technician capable.
Comments, some borderline people, they seem to be accepted from anywhere, anyone who applied to the MATE program as intern seems to be accepted, whether they are technician bent. How does the MATE
Program integrate the interns.
Would be good to have a tighter integration of participants actually having some formal MATE background training.
The goals of MATE from our understanding are worthwhile to pursue but for us to take our time in interview/participation there needs to be some pre sceening from the MATE program whether in formal classroom or some other schemes.
Steve will give a summary.(but Aubri Steele came up afterward and will provide summary)
What was intended doesn’t seem to be realized with the actual types that pass thru.
Some are just doing this not to be technicians but as a pause. So we seemed to have a mix of response because of type of people showing up not that they were available.
Aubri Steele will deliver the summary
Comparison of INMARSAT B vs F77
New SBE-23 oxygen sensors
o Rich: They have 6 of them. They look good, It is a significant improvement.
1:27 Sandy _____, SIO, Liquid Scintillation Counters (LSC) being on board
o Take source out for shipping, so if source is held up in customs etc, whole van & LSC will not be held up.