UNOLS FLEET IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

The Spring 2007 UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee Meeting (FIC)
will be held on March 20-21, 2007 (Tuesday and Wednesday)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
T-29 Martin Johnson House, La Jolla, CA

 

A copy of these minutes is available as a pdf document: <200703ficmi.pdf>.

Executive Summary:

 

The UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee met at Scripps Institution of Oceanography on March 20-21, 2007. Day two of the meeting included a joint session with the UNOLS Council.  Reports and updates on Fleet renewal plans and implementation were provided.  Agency representatives reported on budget projections and facility acquisition efforts.  The status of the development of ADA Guidelines for Research Vessels was also provided. 

 

New and Continuing Action Items:

 

Task Description

Action/Status

Ocean Class SMRs - Over the next two months verify whether or not these SMRs still represent the community’s requirements.  Prioritize the SMRs with input provided by Navy on constraints.

FIC

Global Class:  Update SMRs – send out one last call for community input and finalize

Global Class SMR Committee

KILO MOANA Actions:

·        Contact Brian Taylor to keep abreast of Handling System details.

Dave H.

·        Draft EOS or other appropriate article

Dave and Brian Taylor

Design and Constructions Efforts - Stay engaged in ongoing design and construction efforts (Regional Class, ARRV, Langseth Conversion, etc.)

FIC

Fleet Improvement Plan Update:

·         Finalize all writing assignments, Revise and generate new charts as suggested during meeting, incorporate alternative/new technologies, complete Ship requirements table.

FIC & Office

ADA Guidelines:

·         Complete ADA Guidelines for UNOLS Fleet

Terry Whitledge

Develop Webpage(s) for Science and Educational Opportunities – incorporate FIC suggestions, request Nixon review, finalize

DeSilva

Science User Debriefs for R/V Hugh Sharp - Dave working with Matt Hawkins will draft user debrief questions that will evaluate the new technologies of the ship. 

·         Conduct debrief interviews with Sharp users.

Dave Hebert

 

 

·         FIC

Ocean Observatories – Stay in contact with ORION Office.

Dave Hebert

Science User Debriefs for Knorr’s Long Coring Capability - Dave working with Jim Broda/Bill Curry will draft user debrief questions that will evaluate the operation of Knorr’s long core capability.  It will also assess the impact on the general-purpose capability of the ship.

·         Conduct debrief interviews with Knorr users.

Dave Hebert

 

 

 

·         FIC

FIC Membership Changes – Seek nominations to fill Terry Whitledge’s FIC position.  Representation from a Biologist is desired.  Geographic areas not represented include Alaska, off Washington, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Office and FIC

 

 

Appendices:

 

Meeting Summary:

 

Call the Meeting:  The UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) met at Scripps Institution of Oceanography on March 20-21, 2007.  Dave Hebert, FIC Chair, called the meeting to order at 0830 and provided an opportunity for introductions.  The meeting agenda was followed in the order as recording in these minutes.  The meeting agenda is included as Appendix I and the meeting participants are listed in Appendix II. 

 

October 2006 FIC Meeting Minutes – Editorial changes to the October 2006 Meeting Minutes were suggested to correct text on pages 9 and 10. A motion was made to accept the minutes of the October 2006 FIC Meeting with the revisions as noted.  The motion passed (Garfield/Conte).

 

Review FIC Action/Task List from March meeting – Dave Hebert reviewed the status of the Committee action items that are listed on slides 2 and 3 in Appendix III.

 

Fleet Improvement Plan (FIP) Discussion - Dave reviewed the status of the Fleet Improvement Plan and explained that this meeting would focus on the Fleet utilization projections. 

 

Interagency Working Group on Facilities (IWG-F) Report – Bob Winokur reported that the IWG-F Federal Fleet Plan has been sent to the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) twice.  There were substantial comments from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and OSTP.  They objected to any words that commit to funds.  OMB didn’t want anything in the report that wasn’t in a budget.  Only facilities with funding are permitted.  They have recommended that the report be released as a “status report” as opposed to “Plan.”  Any out-year projections are removed.  The plan will project to the year 2015 and through that period the Federal fleet size remains relatively stable.

 

Bob continued by discussing potential future activities for IWG-F.  One suggestion has been to develop a facility priorities plan modeled after the ocean priorities plan.  IWG-F will propose the facilities priorities plan to JSOST.  The plan would address facility priorities for the next decade.  He welcomes everyone’s ideas.  Ideas can be sent to Dave and Annette. 

 

Bob Houtman further explained the OMB and OSTP view of IWG-F’s Fleet Plan.  They felt that the plan had a strident tone in its statement for the need for ships.  OMB doesn’t think that ships should be viewed as the only tool.  OMB recommended that new technologies be considered in addition to ships.  They need to look at other cost effective means for doing science (novel, less man power).  Bob Houtman explained that we would all be more effective in promoting Fleet renewal if we can also address the benefits of new technologies. 

 

Discussion followed:

·         Clare asked if the Navy’s Ocean Class ships are in the plan. Bob Winokur replied that the two Ocean Class ships are in the plan.

·         Al Hine asked what other facilities are needed and being considered by IWG-F.  Bob Houtman gave the example of AUVs and explained that IWG-F fully recognizes the need for ships, but they are looking at what other technologies are needed

·         Dave suggested that FIC also consider other technologies and determine if they will reduce the need for the ships and if so, to what extent?

·         Al Hine questioned whether there has ever been a meeting where the technology people have sat down with the ship people to determine how the technologies would impact ship demand.

·         Terry Whitledge recommended that mission scenarios are needed. 

 

Dave presented Figure 17 of the 2001 FOFC plan that shows the Fleet renewal plans (Appendix III).  He then went through the evolution of renewal plans and what is now presented in the IWG-F status report.  FIC will need to justify what facilities are needed above the IWG-F report.

 

Annette explained that one difference between the IWG-F status report and the UNOLS FIP is the dates that the new ships are scheduled to enter the Fleet (Appendix III).  The FIP dates reflect the latest estimates of retirement dates.  All agreed that the UNOLS renewal dates should be used in the FIP report.

 

Regional Class Acquisition Status – In late 2006, a 90-day stop work order was issued to each of the Regional Class design/build teams.  The order ended in mid-March.  Work will resume and the teams will be given revised specifications that include constraints for ship construction cost and life cycle costs.  As for the Regional Class operator selection, NSF would like to have the operator selected by the time of ship construction.  The revised Regional Class specifications call for a maximum length of 155-ft and that the ship be uninspected.

 

Ship Time Request Award Statistics – Mike Prince has prepared a paper on Ship Time Request award statistics and it was distributed prior to the meeting (Appendix IV).  The paper estimates proposal success as it relates to ship time requests.  It is based on all of the “active” ship time requests in the UNOLS system. It does not include requests submitted prior to 2006 that had been declined, but it does include (in the funded category) earlier requests. This skews the results in favor of funded requests.  The requests are for NSF only, except that OPP has been excluded.  Basically the ship time proposal success rate in 2007 is about 30%, which is probably a bit high.  The UNOLS Office doesn’t have a good way to track success rates.  The bottom line is that to increase ship utilization, funding support must be increased.

 

Fleet Improvement Plan Projections - Next discussion focused on the projection charts contained in Appendix III.  The chart that projects ship demand as compared to the number of ship days available through 2025 was discussed and concern over the gap between ship demand and the available ship days was expressed.  The gap would potentially make it difficult to justify the need for new vessels.  Discussion followed: 

·         Maureen Conte – We need to highlight the point about the funding shortfall.  Demand is high, but due to funding constraints, not as much ship time can be afforded.

·         Al Hine - Can commercial time be sold?  Marc explained that selling commercial time has to be handled very carefully.  Federally funded vessels cannot be considered as competition to the commercial vessels.

·         Jim Bauer – Perhaps there could be different versions of the projections with curves that show an

-         Annual increase in ship demand of 1%

-         Annual increase in ship demand of 2%

-         Remove the axis that shows the number of ships

·         Bob Winokur – Avoid the ship demand projection that is a flat line.  This would make it difficult for them to justify the acquisition of Ocean Class ships.

Ocean Observatory Projections - Dave reported that Kendra Daly (ORION Office) provided ocean observatory projections (see Appendix V).  Support for science days associated with research at ocean observatory are not included in the Major Research Equipment (MRE) account budget.  Bob Detrick explained that the MRE account budget only covers the installation costs for the ocean observatories and that operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are not included in the MRE.  According to the observatory projections provided by Kendra, the 140 maintenance days plus transit would need to be supported from the traditional basic research budget.  The UNOLS projection chart that includes observatory facility needs in Appendix III is incorrect; there shouldn’t be any blue bars.  ORION hopes that the NSF budget would grow enough by 2013 to support O&M.

 

Discussion:

·         It was pointed out that once an observatory is installed, it would have to be serviced.  The service costs will compete with science funds.

·         Suggestion – In the FIP, change “utilization” to “funded ship time.”

·         Excess ship capacity could be used to accommodate event response needs that are more likely once the observatories are installed.

·         A suggestion was made to add another chart that shows ship time request days, days available, and days funded.

 

Service Life Extension Plans (SLEPs) – In February 2007 the operators for Endeavor, Oceanus, Wecoma, Point Sur, and Cape Hatteras were asked the following questions:

  1. How long can you continue operating your vessel with your present maintenance plan before you would need a service life extension program (SLEP)?
  2. In 2004, all of the operators were polled regarding SLEP requirements and associated costs. Does the cost and work items identified in the 2004 survey still represent the SLEP requirements for the ship that you operate? 

 

The summary of their response is included in Appendix VI. 

The current projected retirement dates for these ships are all within the next 5 years.  It was suggested that the Endeavor, Oceanus, and Cape Hatteras retirement dates could be extended a couple years before a SLEP is needed.  All of the ship service lives could be extended for five or ten years with SLEPs.  The question before FIC is whether or not the retirement dates in the plan should be revised.  If needed the SLEPs could be implemented until a new ship comes on line.

 

Bob Detrick cautioned that the retirement dates should be carefully evaluated.  Ships must be available to support the ORION Pioneer array in the mid-Atlantic.  Before taking ships off line, the needs of science and observatories should be considered.  Some of the ships will have to stay in service.

 

Annette commented that there will be a UNOLS subcommittee appointed each year to evaluate ship scheduling recommendations and non-operational periods.  As part of their tasking, they will consider the retirement dates of vessels.

 

In conclusion, it was decided to keep the retirement dates as they currently are stated and add an explanation that the dates can be extended without major new investment.  Given the future needs that are known (ORION installation), the current ship service lives can be extended.  Until the new ships come on line, the current ships can be operated, but it must be realized that they are less capable.  Refer to the retirement date as the “projected end of service” date.

 

Additional Chart Suggestions:

·         Include a chart that shows the average fleet age by year.

·         On the projection chart – split out the bar so that it shows the average age of the ship.  Base the age on the year the ship was built.

·         Ships that have dynamic positioning and multibeam systems (ships that support observatories should have DP)

·         Another Chart - Make a table that compares the SMRs to the Fleet

 

 

Lunch Break

 

Fleet Improvement Plan (FIP) Discussion - continued

 

Science Facility Requirements - Dave reported that he created a summary list of ship requirements needed to meet future science directions (Appendix VII).  To create the list, he went through each of the science sections of the FIP and pulled out the science facility needs.  He was looking at the facility needs that go beyond the SMRs.  The list was an attempt at identifying all of the facility needs.  He compared his list to the SMRs and there was considerable overlap.  As a follow-on, a table could be put together to identify which items are needed for each discipline. 

 

·         Maureen – Uncontaminated air sampling should be added to the list.  This item should be separated out, or it should be better defined.  Say “Clean Air”

·         Al Hine – There should be a rock-dredging ability.  Dave replied that the new handling system should be able to support rock-dredging.

·         Al Hine – A freezer should be included.

·         Some of the items in Dave’s table could be accommodated in vans.

 

As a next step, the question of how new/alternative technologies affect how science is carried out should be addressed.  Some of these technologies include:

·         AUVs

·         Gliders

·         ROVs

·         Observatories

·         Remote aircraft

·         Off shore stable platforms

·         Floats (disposable)

·         Shore based instruments

The technologies should be examined to determine how they would impact ship time.  Their limitations and benefits should be identified.  Toby suggested that we determine what portion of the ocean cannot be sampled with gliders.  This section can be added after the IWG-F

 

Fleet Renewal Recommendations - The table that compares the Fleet of 2005 to the Fleet of 2020 was reviewed (Appendix III).  General discussion followed:

 

·         Clare – Are we losing our national capability compared to the other countries that are making investments into facilities.  A chart could be added showing the foreign ships that are coming on line.

 

·         The facility needs that are required by the Ocean Research Priorities Plan should be stated.  Basically, what facilities are needed to meet demand in future?

 

·         Bob Detrick – We are facing the problem that the new facilities being built will be too expensive too operate.  We won’t be able to afford them.  There is a need to have a balanced renewal plan that considers operating costs.  It is better if UNOLS can come up with the plan rather than the agencies.

 

·         Marc Willis – There must be a compelling argument as to why more ships are needed. 

 

·         Maureen – A question that could be addressed is “Will the current fleet and projected fleet meet the requirements of the Pew and Ocean Commission Report”

 

·         Dave – The FIC needs to identify the number of ships that will be needed in the future.

 

·         It was suggested that a couple of ships be added to the renewal plan and be shown as gray ships (as was done in the 2001 FOFC Plan).  These could fall between the classes in terms of size and capability:

2015 - Regional/Ocean Class vessel

2017 - Ocean/Global Class vessel

By 2015, the current MRE projects should be completed and perhaps NSF would be receptive to new acquisition initiatives.

 

·         Maureen said that we need to articulate why SLEPs won’t be beneficial. 

 

New UNOLS Web Page – Volunteering and Cruise Opportunities - Annette DeSilva reviewed the draft UNOLS web page <http://www.unols.org/info/cruise_opportunities.html> that could be used as a tool for chief scientists/PIs to recruit watchstanders for cruises.  It can also be used by students and educators to volunteer to serve on cruises.  The FIC recommended that the list of volunteers should not be listed for public viewing, instead the names could be provided upon request.  It was also recommended that Dennis Nixon (UNOLS risk manager) be asked to review the site.

 

Break –The FIC moved to a new meeting room for the remainder of the meeting.

 

American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) Guidelines – Terry Whitledge reviewed the status of the draft ADA Guidelines for Research Vessels.  He reported that progress has been delayed and the final draft hasn’t been vetted through the ADA committee yet.  He continued by reporting on the ADA workshop that was held at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in September 2006.  He discussed some of the findings and recommendations.  Terry’s full report will be provided to the Council later in the meeting.

 

Most of Terry’s focus has been on the ADA guidelines for the Regional Class ships.  NSF asked the ADA Committee to provide ADA guidelines so that they could be included in the Regional Class designs.  Dave Barksdale reported that the ADA recommendations have been included in the Regional Class modified specifications that were recently sent to each of the Regional Class design teams.

 

Annette added that procedural ADA guidelines will be included in the updated version of the Research Vessel Safety Standards (currently being drafted).  Also, the NSF inspectors will be looking for things that could enhance ADA accessibility during their ship inspections.  The ADA design modifications will also be incorporated into the SMRs.

 

Global Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) Update - Dave Hebert reported that there has been minimal community response to the survey on Global vessel SMRs.  Some years ago a Global Class SMR committee was formed to update the SMRs.  The committee was formed because we thought that the updated SMRs would be useful as plans were developed for the Global Class mid-life refits.

 

There have been some new capabilities that could be desired for these ships.  Bob Detrick pointed out that the Global vessels might potentially be useful in servicing the observatories.  More information would be needed on the final design of the benthic nodes and how frequently they would have to be serviced. 

 

Dave Hebert added that a long piston core capability might also be desired for the Global Ships.

 

Bob Detrick said that an upgraded dynamic positioning systems for the Global ships would be useful.

 

For the next step, the Committee decided to put out one last community call for Global SMR input before updating the SMRs.

 

Kilo Moana Update - Dave reported that the new load handling system has been installed and is in service on the R/V Sharp.  The Kilo Moana handling system requires ABS approval, which has turned out to be a very slow process.  U. Hawaii expects to have their new system in June 2007.  Hawaii would like to install the system in their homeport so that they can tend to any initial installation needs.  ROV Jason II trials were carried out from Kilo Moana to determine if the vessel could support the ROV.  The trials were successful.

 

Other business:

 

R/V Sharp User Debriefs - Dave Hebert raised the question of whether FIC should conduct user debriefs for R/V Sharp.  The ship is the newest in the Fleet and has many new features.  Alternatively, FIC could monitor the Sharp via the post cruise assessment reports that are submitted by the users.  Jim Bauer has used the vessel and was in favor of the debrief interviews.  The input would be useful as renewal efforts move forward with the Regional Class designs.  Dave Barksdale commented that any input would be too late for the Regional Class design, but if there is something catastrophic it should be brought to the attention of the designers.  However, the information could be helpful to the Ocean Class design process.

 

There was discussion on whether or not Sharp’s operator should be included in the debrief interviews.  Annette pointed out that there was criticism for not including the operator in the Kilo Moana debrief process.  The FIC expressed concern about having operator involvement and worried that the users would not be open in their assessments.

 

Jim Bauer shared some feedback from his cruise aboard Sharp. The new handling system had been heavily lubricated with grease prior to Jim’s cruise.  As a chemical oceanographer, there was concern with grease contamination of the samples collected.  This is the type of user feedback that would be useful to improve future operation.

 

The Committee decided to move forward with the Sharp debriefs.  Dave will contact Matt Hawkins and work with him to develop debrief questions with the intent to evaluate the new technologies of the ship.

 

R/V Marcus Langseth –