Meeting Minutes
Executive
Summary: The 2008 RVTEC Meeting was hosted by Florida State
University on 28-30 October. Stewart
Lamerdin, RVTEC Vice-Chair, presided over the meeting. The meeting began with a moment of silence
for Bill Martin, RVTEC Chair. Bill passed
away just weeks before the meeting while working aboard the R/V Thompson. His leadership and dedication to RVTEC will
be greatly missed.
The meeting agenda was full. A few of the major topics of discussion
included the:
·
Crew
and Marine Technician Retention and Recruitment Initiative.
·
Repository
to Deck (R2R) Initiative
·
Implementation
of RVSS Appendix A = Safe Working Loads and Monitoring Systems.
The agenda also included reports
from agency representatives, committee reps, the UNOLS Chair, and subcommittee
liaisons. The RVTEC traveled to FSU’s
Coastal and Marine Laboratory for a tour.
Group purchases were discussed.
An informative Show and Tell session was provided at the end of the
meeting.
Elections were held for a new RVTEC
Chair. Rich Findley from the University
of Miami was elected. University of
Washington will host the 2009 meeting.
Action Items:
RVTEC Chair Election – Send RVTEC’s Chair nomination of
Rich Findley to Vernon Asper, UNOLS Chair, for Council endorsement. (UNOLS
Office) - Status: complete
Research Vessel Safety Standards:
Post Cruise Assessment Report
Subcommittee – Send
a recommendation to the UNOLS Council for the PCAR committee to regroup. (RVTEC Chair).
RVTEC
Charter Review http://www.unols.org/info/ucharter.html#annexV:
·
RVTEC
should review Annex V.
·
Send
comments to the UNOLS Office
·
Annette
will compile all comments and recirculate to RVTEC.
Education
Subcommittee – Aubri Steele has agreed to chair this committee. Tasks
include:
Solicit RVTEC Nominations to
Committees and Subcommittees - Action for Rich Findley
Ocean Class Research Vessel
Acquisition – UNOLS
Rep: RVTEC Chair will solicit RVTEC nominations for this position. RVTEC Chair
will draft a recommendation that the individual nominated by RVTEC serve as the
OCRV UNOLS rep and that the position should be compensated. RVTEC also
recommends that single person representation is insufficient and should be
expanded.
RF
Frequency Spectrum Management Committee - Richard Perry will continue to be the point of contact.
Disband the committee.
HiSeasNet – RVTEC members should contact
Steve Foley if interested in training.
Pilot Program – Fleet Broadband – WHOI will prepare a report on the
Fleet Broadband installation on Oceanus.
(Al Suchy)
Defined Levels of Technical Services – Encourage Tech Managers to enter http://unolsweb.cms.udel.edu/STRS/Public/diu_login.aspx
. The UNOLS Office is willing to assist. Annette will send reminders.
RVTEC and Tech Manager Email Lists:
Winch/Wire Monitoring System: Group
development effort
Gravimeter Pool – Dan Fornari is preparing written
guidance regarding access and use of the gravimeters. The UNOLS Office will circulate the document
when available. Any additional action
can be determined once the guidance document has been reviewed.
Shared Support for Specialty Systems – Determine if there are systems that would benefit
by pooling resources for maintaining, calibrating, processing, etc.
Crew and Marine Technician Retention and Hiring:
Apendices:
|
I |
|
|
II |
|
|
III |
|
|
IV |
|
|
V |
Alaska Region Research Vessel Update (6.7 MB) |
|
VI |
|
|
VII |
|
|
VIII |
INMARTECH 2008 Report (1.6 MB) |
|
IX |
UNOLS Chair Report (1.3 MB) |
|
X |
|
|
XI |
HiSeasNet Report (1.1 MB) |
|
XII |
|
|
XIII |
|
|
XIV |
|
|
XV |
|
|
XVI |
Legacy Data Workshop Report (1.1 MB) |
|
XVII |
|
|
XVIII |
|
|
XIX |
|
|
XX |
Wire
Workshop |
|
XXI |
Pumped
MocNess |
|
XXII |
|
|
XXIII |
|
|
XXIV |
Two-Ship SWAP in the Arctic (2.9 MB) |
|
XXV |
SmokePing
Monitoring Tool |
Meeting
Report:
Monday October 27th -- COAPS, R. M. Johnson Building Room 220
Focus group meetings were held on
the following topics:
Tuesday October 28th – Research Foundation Area –
Building A, Room 120
Steward Lamerdin, RVTEC Vice Chair,
called the 2008 RVTEC meeting to order at 8:30 am. Shawn Smith (FSU) provided a few welcoming
remarks and logistic details. Eric Chassignet, Director of FSU’s Center for
Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS) provided the FSU welcome. He gave a
brief overview of the COAPS program.
Introductory remarks to the 2008
RVTEC meeting participants were provide by Stewart Lamerdin. He started by saying that he was sorry to be
standing in front of group at this meeting instead of Bill Martin, RVTEC Chair,
who recently passed away while serving the oceanographic community on the R/V Thompson. A moment of silence was observed in memory of
Bill. A plaque and memory book was on
display in the room and RVTEC members were invited to add their thoughts to the
book.
RVTEC meeting participants
introductions were made. The meeting agenda
is included as Appendix I and the participant list is included as Appendix
II.
RVTEC Chair Election – Marc Willis reported that there are two candidates for RVTEC Chair –
Rich Findley (U. Miami) and Dale Chayes (L-DEO). If anyone else is interested, see Marc. Marc reviewed the responsibilities of the
Chair.
Accept 2007 RVTEC Minutes – Marc Willis made a motion to accept the 2007
minutes. Mary-Lynn provided a
second. The motion passed.
Agency Reports:
Office of Naval Research (ONR) – Tim Schnoor provided the ONR
report. He has been at ONR for a while,
but recently took over as the Research Facilities manager. A lot of the ship operations activities are new
to him and he is coming up to speed. The
Navy is on a continuing resolution. Bob
Houtman has been a great help to him.
Although funding is limited, there are some Navy specialized programs to
support ship equipment.
United States Coast Guard (USCG) – Jon Berkson provided the USCG report.
He gave an update on their Icebreakers:
National Science Foundation (NSF) – Jim Holik provided the NSF report. His slides are included as Appendix
III. Jim has been at NSF for 9
months. He reviewed NSF’s Ocean Science Integrative Program Section staffing changes. The Section head position was filled
by Bob Houtman, formerly of
ONR. Matt Hawkins, formerly of U. of Delaware, was hired as Program
Manager for SSSE and Ship Acquisitions. Jim Holik was hired as Program Manager
for Technical Services and Oceanographic Instrumentation. He replaced Sandy
Shor. Linda Goad continues to oversee Ship Operations and Brian Midson has been assigned to Deep
Submergence Facilities. He replaced Dolly Dieter.
The FY2009 budget appropriation has
not been passed and NSF is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution
through March 2009.
FY 09
again looks to be a very challenging year with Ship Operations projecting major
shortfalls. In 2009, the Global ships
are projected to have good schedules, East Coast Intermediate schedules are
weak however, and layups are suggested. Technicians
and instrumentation programs funding are expected to be similarly stressed. Some of the pressures on the 2009 tech
support budget include 2 CLIVAR cruises, 3 long core cruises, and Langseth operations.
NSF recommendations for layups in 2009 are for one NSF Intermediate Class ship on the east coast and
fund only a partial schedule for Seward
Johnson. Also recommended is a
partial lay up for the New Horizon.
In ship design news, the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) was
delayed a year but completed its Final Design Review (FDR) last week. The Regional Class Research Vessels (RCRV)
design study continues and should be completed this year.
New
Initiatives for 2009 include:
•
Pools: Van, Wire and Winch
•
Fleet wide data collection and archiving
•
Technician Pool
•
A New Way to Handle the Equipment Pools.
Van, Winch
and Wire pools will have stand-alone budgets to include salary, maintenance and
shipping. The van pool is funded under Oceanographic
Instrumentation and the Wire and Winch pools are funded under SSSE.
NSF is
funding the “Rolling Deck to Repository (R2R)” project. It is an initiative to standardize data
collection and data archival across the fleet.
It removes the onus from operators to archive and provide data
post-cruise. It establishes a shore side
repository for all underway marine data, essentially creating an integrated
global observing network. The plan is to
begin slowly with metadata and navigation but ultimately encompass all underway
data.
Next Jim
presented his concept of a Technician Pool.
Jim said that the establishment of a pool of contract, sea-going
technicians can provide greater flexibility, cost savings and ultimately better
science support. The Tech Pool is not an
attempt to destroy institutional culture.
The same technicians can continue to work on the same vessels. It is not an attempt to decrease the level of
technical support. The Tech Pool can
offer more flexible and discipline specific cruise staffing. It can provide an opportunity for technicians
who are either not able or willing to be full time employees of an institution,
to sail. There would be an opportunity
for cross-platform exposure and training for technicians. It would be a gradual transition from the
paradigm of full-time, institution specific technical support to one of cruise
specific staffing based on need.
To work,
the Tech Pool must have clearly defined pay and opportunity structure with
benefits comparable to those at the institutions. Buy-in from institutions, which includes the
contribution of technicians to the pool and the opportunity for pooled
technicians to sail on their vessels.
Jim
presented one idea of how the Tech pool would function. The pool could be managed by someone in the UNOLS office (new
hire). This person is responsible for hiring, administration, and scheduling of
the pool in direct coordination with the Tech Managers. Pool Technicians become contractors to a
single institution. The Technician is
paid a base rate and is paid only while working or traveling. The Tech can make his/her own contribution to
benefits while not working.
Lastly, Jim
commented that he wishes that RVYEC would participate and make presentations in
future international settings (INMARTECH).
UNOLS Reports
Fleet Improvement
Committee (FIC) –
Marc Willis reported that the FIC is finalizing the Fleet Improvement Plan and
it should be complete very soon. The FIC
is also working to set values and priorities for the Ocean SMRs.
Dale asked where the FIP fits with the agency Fleet
plan. Marc – The Interagency Working
Group on Facilities (IWG-F) published a status report, but was not allowed to
establish a “plan.” The FIC was
unconstrained and could develop a plan based on the science demand.
RVOC and Safety Committee – Annette DeSilva provided the status of the effort to
update the Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS).
See Appendix IV. The RVSS applies to all UNOLS vessels,
whether or not they are USCG Inspected, and are based on regulations for
inspected vessels and good practices. Vessels
operators must adhere to the UNOLS RVSS in order to be designated as a UNOLS
vessel. Inspection teams use the RVSS to
ensure compliance.
Since the last update, the overall structure of the standards was
revised to uniformly show those requirements mandated by laws and regulations,
those required by the UNOLS RVSS in addition, and any further recommendations,
best practices or resources. The chapters were re-ordered.
A chapter was added on Personal Safety with
sections covering alcohol and drug policies, sexual harassment and
accommodations for persons with disabilities (Chapter 5). Chapter
10, on explosives was removed and relevant information was inserted in
Chapter 8 (Hazardous Materials). A
chapter was added on Human Occupied Vehicle (HOV) safety (Chapter 11).
There are new appendices.
Appendix A provides UNOLS Rope and Cable Safe Working Load Standards. Appendix B provides UNOLS Load Handling
System Design Standards and Appendix E includes a Sexual Harassment Brochure.
One goal of this standard is to
minimize damage to cables and handling equipment, and the loss of scientific
equipment, while still permitting the science objective to be met. Appendix A defines the operating requirements, or loading
limitations on wire, and are expressed in terms of Factor of Safety (FS) on the
Nominal Breaking Load (NBL) and divided into three different categories:
– FS of 5 or greater
– FS of 4.9 to 2.5
– FS of 2.4 to 1.5
Appendix A also defines the inspection and testing
requirements for wire.
The final draft of the RVSS has
been circulated to RVOC and the Technical Services Managers. Mike Prince has requested comments by end of
month. The update is dedicated to both Jim
Williams and Bill Martin.
Each UNOLS Marine Superintendent or
Operations Manager has a vote on whether or not to approve the revised RVSS
and send it to Council for their approval.
Discussion:
·
Dale
– He feels that the document is not ready for print. There are parts that are missing and pieces
that are confusing. It needs to be
edited.
·
Rich
– It needs to be rewritten so that it can be revised more easily.
·
RVTEC
needs to nominate a rep to the safety committee.
·
Marc
– this is a very important document. We
have to use this document. We rely on
it.
·
Rich
– Suggested that a committee be formed and given parts of the document to read.
·
Marc
– there are problems with content as well as editorial. More time is needed for the review in order
to be accurate.
·
Annette
stressed that Mike put a lot of effort into this and would want it to be as
accurate as possible.
Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) – Steve Hartz reported on some of
the recommendations that the AICC has put over the past year. The recommendations included one that the NSF
support the proposed replacement of the existing Healy multibeam system with a Kongsberg EM122 multibeam system
during a planned dry-dock in 2010. The
AICC has also recommended that NSF purchase a laboratory van to be used on the
icebreakers, and, when not needed, to be part of the UNOLS van pool.
The AICC has recommended that NSF and the CG enable Science of Opportunity
(SOO) on non-science missions on board POLAR SEA and other icebreakers through
open calls to the community. They also
recommend that NSF support upgrades/maintenance to existing science equipment
on POLAR SEA and that the NSF continue to support the POLAR STAR in caretaker
status until a decision is made regarding replacement or refurbishment of the
POLARS.
The AICC continues their efforts to
regularly communicate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission.
Steve reported that he attended the
Unmanned Aircraft Systems meeting in Anchorage (NOAA & Shell). Shell is
using one off of the Norseman2 for marine mammal observations.
Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Aircraft Research (SCOAR) – Steve Hartz reported that the
committee has not been very active. They
are soliciting nominations for a new Chair.
Deep Submergence Science Committee (DESSC) Report – Annette DeSilva provided a report
on the DESSC activities. A major focus
of the year for DESSC has been advising on the Replacement Human Occupied
Vehicle (RHOV) project. That project
took a new direction this year when the decision was made to pursue a phased
6500m HOV capability by installing the new titanium sphere currently in
fabrication into Alvin. Initially the vehicle will maintain a rating
of 4500m. Over time as Alvin’s other systems are certified to
6500m, the depth rating will be increased.
DESSC continues to conduct user
debriefs for the deep submergence vehicles.
They recommend system improvements based on the user feedback. Lastly, DESSC will hold their winter
community meeting on Sunday, Dec 14, 2008 in San Francisco.
Marcus Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC) – Al Walsh reported that R/V Langseth has been in operation since the
start of the year and has had successes.
There were three 2D cruises, one 3D cruise, one sound source only w/
OBSs. It has been a daunting task keeping the ship staffed with the technical
expertise that is needed.
Post Cruise Assessment Report (PCAR) Subcommittee – Mary-Lynn Dickson reported that
the committee has been inactive. Mike
Prince is trying to re-activate the committee.
Discussion:
·
The
PCAR results are likely to be used in ship lay-up decisions.
·
There
are a lot of PCARs submitted by scientists and captains, but far less are
submitted by the marine technicians.
·
Jim
Holik – He receives the PCARs that identify problems.
·
Annette
reported on the PCAR distribution - Linda Goad receives the PCARs at NSF and
then distributes them accordingly to the Program Managers. The UNOLS Office receives all reports and
enters them into a database. Statistics
on the report submittal levels are reported annually at the RVOC meeting. Prior to NSF’s inspection, the inspectors
receive a compilation of all of the PCARs that were submitted for the
ship.
·
Jim
Holik - The NSF Committee of Visitors were concerned over the low number of PCARs
submitted by the marine technicians.
·
Rich
Findley –He recommends that some one in the business of surveys create the
form.
·
Dale
– There is new leadership at the agencies that can be approached regarding this
topic.
·
Dale
– The PCAR committee should be active.
·
Shawn
– perhaps RVTEC should recommend that the agencies fund the creation of a new form.
·
Rich
Findley – Internally his group created a form.
He will try to find it and distribute it.
RVTEC Charter Review http://www.unols.org/info/ucharter.html#annexV
– Annette DeSilva reported that a copy of the RVTEC by-laws, Annex V of the UNOLS
Charter, was adopted in 1993 and revised in 2004. If anyone has comments to the Charter they
should send them to the UNOLS Office.
RVTEC nominations for Committees and Subcommittees – There are a few RVTEC subcommittee memberships and liaison positions with openings:
RVOC/Safety Committee - Bill Martin had served on the Safety Committee as the RVTEC
rep. There isn’t anything in Annex V
that states that this position must be the RVTEC Chair. It is preferred that the Safety Committee members
be from operator institutions. Since the
Safety Committee typically meets the day before the RVOC meeting, the Safety
committee member can also represent RVTEC at the RVOC meeting. RVTEC can also be represented by the marine technician
from the host institution. The Safety Committee
is responsible for updating the RVSS.
Any issues that involve the safety of operations fall onto the plate of
the Safety Committee.
PCAR Subcommittee – Mary-Lynn Dickson has served on this subcommittee for a few years and
plans to step down next year. A
replacement is needed. They have been inactive
over the last year, but Mike Prince plans to start the review process
again. The subcommittee reviews the PCARs
and identifies any trends and areas of concern.
The subcommittee will also try to address the problem of low return of
the PCAR forms by the technicians and if needed, perhaps create a new form.
Education and Training Subcommittee – Bill had chaired this committee. The tasking for the subcommittee was to
maintain a webpage with a listing of training opportunities. Over the years it became more informal. If an institution hosted a training session,
they would invite the RVTEC members to participate. RVTEC needs to decide if this committee is
still needed.
Phil McGillivary – suggested that a
U-tube video of deck operations would be useful. The aft deck camera on the Healy provides videos. Annette – These sorts of videos could be added
to a library of user manuals. Rich Findley
– He has an HO book from the 1960’s.
There was discussion on whether of
not the RVTEC rep to the Safety Committee and the RVTEC liaison to RVOC should
be the same person. Rich and Dale felt
that the reps do not have to be the same person. The more RVTEC reps in the community, the
better.
Break
Ship Updates:
Regional Class Research Vessel
(RCRV) – Stewart
Lamerdin provided an updated on the Regional Class design and acquisition
effort. The design effort by two
design/build teams is still underway.
One shipyard went into bankruptcy.
After both ship designs are complete, there are no immediate plans for continuing
the acquisition effort. The RCRV
committee will provide recommendations on the two designs. If funds become available, construction can
be started up based on the recommendations.
Alaska
Region Research Vessel (ARRV) – Marc Willis provided an update on the ARRV project. His slides are included as Appendix
V. There are shipyards
qualified to bid on the project. The
project will be funded from NSF’s Major Research Equipment – Facilities
Construction (MRE-FC) account. FDR held at NSF on 20-23
October. The Panel recommended that the
project move toward construction and the decision is now pending NSF and
National Science Board approvals. If all goes as planned, construction would be complete
in 2013 to 2014. The timeline is
dependent upon the z-drive fabrication.
A major decision is required on whether the z-drives should be purchased as
Owner furnished equipment (OFE) or contractor furnished equipment (CFE). Currently, the z-drives have a 36-42 month
lead time. An additional 11 months would
be required if the z-drives were to be CFE.
The FDR Panel recommended the OFE option.
Ocean Class Research Vessel (OCRV) Acquisition Status – Tim Schnoor provided the status
of the Ocean Class acquisition effort.
His slides are included as Appendix VI. The construction funds are in the Navy’s budget. The solicitation for design/build teams is on
track for release in FY2009, first quarter.
The draft solicitation is complete and in NAVSEA Contracts and Legal
review. An Industry Day was held.
The ship is being built in phases. Phase I is for Preliminary/Contract Design
and Phase II is for Detail Design and Construction. There will be at least two awards for the
Phase I period and one award for Phase II.
The Navy’s plan is to request participation of two UNOLS
representatives (1 primary, 1 alternate) to ensure coverage at all design
reviews. Continuity of
personnel throughout the design process is ideal. During Phase I, the rep would attend design
reviews to be held once every three months at each Contractor’s facility
(multiple designs). The rep would assist
with review of data deliverables (drawings, plans, calculations). He/she would provide input on Science Mission
Systems equipment selections and attend design reviews to be held once every
two months at the construction facility.
During Phase II, the rep would attend design reviews to be held once
every 2 months at the construction facility.
He/she would assist with review of data deliverables (drawings, plans, and
calculations) and with review of vendor recommended spares listings and
commercial off-the-shelf technical manuals.
Additionally, the Navy requests participation of one
representative from each of the institutions selected for operation of the
ships throughout Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. The responsibilities of the operator rep are
outlined in Tim’s slides. He/she will
represent UNOLS and their home institution with the on-site Government team at
the construction facility during construction of the vessels. The rep will collaborate with the Government
team to develop the Post Delivery Schedule, including Mission Trials.
Affordability of the Ocean Class AGOR ships has been of great
concern for the program. The solicitation must be developed to a level
of requirements that is affordable within the given, fixed budget. The Navy continues to evaluate affordability
of level of requirements in the system specifications.
Discussion:
·
Stewart
– As part of the RCRV project, there was a large UNOLS advisory committee and
it seemed beneficial. He is concerned about
leaving this to just one rep would be an enormous responsibility.
·
Marc
– He suggested that RVTEC nominate an individual for the UNOLS OCRV rep.
·
Annette
– At the FIC meeting, the Navy indicated that the UNOLS OCRV would need to be a
volunteer. It is a big effort in terms
of time and travel for a volunteer. Also,
are there any conflict issues that we should be concerned with? Should the OCRV rep be from an institution
that is different from the two operator institutions?
·
Dave
Fisichella – It seems like a small investment in money to pay support for an
OCRV rep now instead of correcting problems later.
·
Dale
– Will an institution have to give up a ship?
·
Stewart
– If anyone is interested in volunteering for the OCRV rep position, see
Annette. The issue of conflict with the
operators and other constraints will have to be addressed with the Navy.
·
Dale
– RVTEC’s nomination of an OCRV rep should come with a recommendation for
compensation and that the rep be appointed early in the project.
·
Tim
- The ship operators will not be selected by the time the Navy needs the UNOLS
OCRV rep. He will look into these issues further.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Mike Webb reported on NOAA’s fleet
recapitalization plan. The plan calls
for the replacement of all the ships by 2020. The plan requires old ships to
come off-line as new ones come on-line. However, NOAA Fisheries requires two
years of new ship to old ship calibrations before they can retire the old one.
·
Because
of high fuel costs, NOAA took two ships off line (Rudy at the beginning of the year and Cob in August).
·
NOAA
acquired the vessel Assertive from the
Navy two years ago, but has decided not to put it in operation.
·
The
biggest challenge facing the NOAA fleet is the high fuel costs.
·
Okeanos Explorer was commissioned when the Cob was decommissioned. Okeanos
Explorer is in a shipyard in Seattle and will soon begin tests of its telepresence
capability. The vessel will likely begin
operations in March 2009. The ROV and
telepresence capabilities have come with a high cost.
·
Phil
- Will the new ships be geographically distributed? Mike - A new home-porting
plan is being developed.
RF Frequency Spectrum Management Committee Status Report – Richard Perry provided a report
on the committee task and activities.
His slides are contained in Appendix VII. There were 17 survey responses that reported
30 types of services. The committee’s
report is available on the UNOLS website.
The Committee’s work is complete and
they were thanked for the efforts. A motion
was made by Chayes/Ustach to disband committee.
The motion passed. Richard Perry
agreed to remain the point of contact for RF Spectrum issues.
INMARTECH 2008 Report – Tim McGovern reported on the INMARTECH 2008 meeting held
in Toulon, France on 8-10 October. His
slides are contained as Appendix VIII. The meeting was heavily focused on the AUVs. China has 3 new ships coming on-line. Aurora
Borealis, a multi-national ice breaker/deep sea drilling vessel is being
designed to operate in all seasons. The
slides provide a detailed review of each day’s agenda and highlights of the
presentations.
Discussion:
·
Jim
Holik – He was very disappointed that more US techs didn’t attend the INMARTECH
meeting. He funds it and more should
attend.
·
Dale
– If we are interested, we should propose to host a future meeting.
·
Tim
McGovern – He has most of the presentations from the meeting and can share them
with anyone interested.
Break - Lunch
UNOLS Council Address – Vernon Asper (UNOLS Council Chair) provided the UNOLS
Report. His slides are contained as Appendix
IX. Vernon just recently became
the UNOLS Chair. Vernon’s slides cover
the following topics:
·
2008
Highlights
·
2008
Activities
·
UNOLS
Policy on Committee Recommendations
·
Fleet
Improvement Plan status, findings, and recommendations
·
UNOLS
Ship Scheduling and Operation Issues
·
UNOLS
Goals for 2009
One of the goals in 2009 addresses
the issue of Maritime
Personnel. Crew and
marine technician retention has always been a challenge for UNOLS vessel
operators. The issue is now reaching
crisis proportions with the boom in the offshore industry which makes it very
difficult for academic salaries to compete.
So much specialized training is invested into each shipboard crewmember
to meet the regulations that turnover is a huge financial loss. RVOC/RVTEC are proposing strategies for
addressing this issue.
Stewart – pointed out that the
average day rate for techs has not changed over time.
Dale – This will enter into the
discussions planned during Day 2 of this meeting.
SWAP General & Focus Group Report – Toby Martin reported on the SWAP2 status and
plans. His presentation is includes as Appendix
X. The SWAP 2 to do list
includes:
Discussion:
·
Jim
Holik – Is additional support needed?
Toby – yes.
·
Jim
Holik - Travel funds should be available.
This year the tech proposals will go to panel. Be sure to justify who is using things like
SWAP and other infrastructure items.
·
Toby
– SWAP is easy to do and can be installed quickly.
HiSeasNet Report – Steve Foley reported on the
current status of HiSeasNet. Refer to
his slides, included as Appendix XI, for details. Steve reviewed the services provided which
include Satellite bandwidth, Earth station connection to Internet at SIO, and
ship equipment maintenance provided roughly two times per year. Steve displayed the Ku-Band coverage. There are eight UNOLS vessels with C-Band
(2.4m dish, Global coverage) and seven ships with Ku-Band (North America
coastal coverage). Changes in 2008,
issues addressed since last RVTEC, highlights from the past year, and equipment
downtimes are included in the slides.
A 4-day HiSeasNet training class was developed and offered
in Feb 2008 at WHOI. 14 students attended.
Most problems that have been experienced are user or ship related; Power
outage, antenna repoints, gyro failure, unfamiliarity with gear, etc. The training
program has helped techs recognize and solve their own problems. RF gear failures are a major cause of ship
outages and the solution is to
carry spares.
Steve encouraged the group to get involved in the wiki. Read the contents and contribute to it. Report problems sooner rather than later.
Future work includes expanding the service to the remaining
ships. They are still looking for better
coverage options for Ku-band ships.
Steve provided a summary of the user group meeting.
The HiSeasNet tech staff can be contacted at hiseasnet@ucsd.edu. Steve will offer additional training sessions
if there is interest. Contact Steve if
interested.
Alliance for Coastal Technology (ACT) – Ali Hudon provided a presentation on ACT, which is
a NOAA-funded partnership of research
institutions, state and regional resource managers, and private sector companies interested in developing and
applying sensor technologies for monitoring coastal environments <see http://act-us.info>. Ali’s slides are included as Appendix XII. ACT members are from the private
sector companies and environmental management agencies. Members participate in planning and
decision-making to ensure a focus on service-oriented activities.
ACT holds technology workshops
that focus on specific sensor technologies for use
in coastal environments. The workshop goals are to help reach consensus on
the steps needed to build useful tools, while also facilitating critical dialogue among technology manufacturers,
developers, and end users.
ACT also
performs technology evaluations and verifications. They evaluate commercially-available
instruments to verify
manufacturers’ performance specifications or claims.
ACT also provides a data and
information clearinghouse, http://www.act-us.info .
Ali is interested on how people find
the usefulness of ACT services.
Break
RVSS Assignments – Dale Chayes presented a chart with the names of the people who volunteered
to review chapters. He also showed his
pdf review document. On the UNOLS
website, there is a pdf or word version of the RVSS. Dale will synthesize all of the RVTEC review
comments and then send it back to RVTEC.
After vetting, the RVTEC chair can present the comments to Mike Prince. Dale asked that volunteers provide comments to
him within a week.
Pilot Program: Fleet Broadband – Dave Fisichella provided the report on the pilot
program. His slides are included as Appendix
XIII.
The Pilot Program goals are to:
·
Evaluate
Fleet Broadband as a reliable, versatile and secure back-up to HiSeasNet (HSN).
·
Evaluate
Fleet Broadband as a stand-alone system for vessels without HSN.
·
Help
develop fleet-wide protocols for administration, billing and security.
The Fleet Broadband (FB) has proven
to be a reliable back-up to HSN. The
system provides for delivery of email in the event of HSN loss; however, the
data pipe is slower than HSN.
As a stand-alone system for vessels
without HSN, the FB is a well designed, lightweight package. It is easy to install and configure,
reasonably priced hardware, with good global coverage. The pay per volume pricing can be expensive
if not tightly managed.
Discussion:
·
Marc
Willis - Did you run the cost figures for the KuBand HSN as compared to the
Fleet Broadband. He would be interested
in hearing how the cost compares?
·
Bruce
Applegate – How are you managing costs?
They don’t charge for HSN?
·
Jim
Holik – There are a couple of ships that don’t have HSN. We wanted to evaluate other options.
·
Joe
Ustach – The Cape Hatteras was part
of the pilot program and their Fleet Broadband use was very expensive. They don’t know why and it didn’t perform
well. Perhaps a webpage was left open.
·
Dave
Fisichella – WHOI monitors their FB system from shore.
·
The
Fleet Broadband coverage in the Pacific is not good.
·
Bill
F – What does the Bill for payment look like?
Dave – It is broken down quite a bit.
·
Jim
Holik – He would entertain a group purchase.
·
Steve
Foley - $45000 would have been the cost of Melville’s
HSN use.
·
Rich
Findley – This would be stepping back in time; it was such a hassle charging and
collecting from users.
·
Jim
Holik – What is the big advantage? Is it
Broadband? Dale – The antennae is small.
·
Toby
– We have been trying to get out of being a service provider. It’s unfair to compare FB to HSN.
SAMOS Update
– Shawn Smith provided the SAMOS update and discussed the flow of SAMOS
observations. SAMOS conducts QC of the
collected data. There are currently 17
ships reporting to SAMOS. Most of the
vessels are NOAA ships. WHOI’s ships
participate. Shawn would like to get
more ships participating. SAMOS will try
to secure funds to support additional UNOLS ships coming on-line with SAMOS. The benefit for vessel operators
participating in SAMOS is they get routine data quality evaluation by
experienced marine meteorologist.
The 2nd SOSUD/SAMOS
workshop was held earlier in the year.
The technicians’ roundtable was very useful. They discussed the need for fleet-wide
standards for underway data.
Shawn is looking for input to define
the knowledge and skills needed to conduct in-situ collection in an ocean
environment.
The time frame for the next workshop
is winter because this is when the NOAA ships are typically tied up.
Shawn discussed the future of
underway data collection. His slide is
included in Appendix XIV. The vision
is to have a UNOLS Central Data Portal. All raw data would feed into a central
repository. Funded data centers would
perform QC and push to the data to a world data
center.
OceanOBS09 will be held in Venice
next year. They will look at ocean
observing as a whole and determine what is working and how R/Vs can be
included.
Discussion:
Dave Fisichella – How should underway
data that is collected in foreign EEZs be dealt with? Shawn – The IOC is trying to address
this. Discussions are underway. It is a problem.
Phil McGillivary – the British have
wave height sensors. Do any UNOLS ships
have this? Frank – Melville is getting a system.
Rich Findley – Explorer had a
system, but it was not automated.
Rich Findley raised the issue of
staffing this effort. If we want all of
these sensors along with QC, it will require support. The scientists who need the data should make
their requirements known and should provide support for the effort.
UHDAS and ADCP update – Julia Hummon provided a report on
the University of Hawaii Data Acquisition System (UHDAS). Her slides are included as Appendix
XV. UHDAS includes two Antarctic
ships, three NOAA ships, and eight UNOLS ships.
The computer at sea provides near real-time processed data for science
as plots on the ship's web or Matlab files.
Jules can interact with the at-sea techs remotely to let know issues
such as the Ashtech is down of the plots are not updating.
The ADCPs are generally working but must be monitored. Jules recommended that the tech groups upgrade
their firmware to 23.16. Also two frequencies
are better than one (although this can be expensive). Obtain an accurate heading device and monitor
it.
Jim Holik – He noted that Jules proposals are always the
highest rated. She should be used as a
model.
Legacy Data Workshop Report – Bob Arko provided a report and discussion on the current
progress for automated transfer of metadata and instrumentation data. His slides are included as Appendix
XVI and cover three topics in detail (see slides):
1. UNOLS Data Management Committee update.
2. Legacy of Ocean Exploration (LOE) meeting.
3. Rolling Deck to Repository (R2R) pilot project.
The Rolling Deck to Repository (R2R) is a collaborative
1-year pilot project funded by NSF OCE.
The goal is to prototype an end-to-end system to deliver data +
documentation from research vessels to a central shore side repository. The R2R team includes people from LDEO, SIO,
and WHOI.
R2R would like underway data from vessels. They have set up an email drop box: <dropbox@researchvesseldata.edu>.
Discussion:
·
Jules
– ADCP is listed in Bob’s list of underway data. ADCP data isn’t worth anything until you have
the metadata and processing. There is
already a central repository for ADCP data.
ADCP must be processed by a person.
Bob – He agrees.
·
Tim
McGovern – they keep an event log. He
doesn’t want to have to maintain two log books.
Bob – This not a trivial issue and Cyndy Chandler is addressing it.
5:25 pm Adjourn
Day 1
Wednesday October 29th – Research Foundation Area
– Building A, Room 120
8:30 am - Call Day 2 of the RVTEC Meeting to Order
Crew Retention Initiative Update – Stewart Lamerdin provided a report on the status of the
Crew and Marine Technician Retention Initiative. The RVTEC and RVOC Chairs and Vice-Chairs
studied this issue over the past year. His
slides with details on the status are included as Appendix XVII. They include a brief history and main
issues. Issues include:
The question has been asked whether RVTEC
should be grouped with RVOC on this issue.
Stewart explained that it was determined to be more effective if grouped
together – strength in numbers and both are facing similar issues.
A salary survey was conducted, but
this is always a sensitive issue and difficult to carry out. There are a lot of holes in the data. They attempted to simplify the survey as much
as possible. Stewart summarized the
salary survey response and results. The
initial assessment is that our salary levels are not that much different than
competing ships of similar employment, however, they are lower than industry
when you account for the amount of paid time off that mariners receive.
Deirdre Sullivan (MATE) has also
conducted a salary survey. It includes a
lot of the federal salaries. It should
be released in early 09. One of the
problems is that the job descriptions vary from institution to institution.
Marine technician salaries are very
hard to compare. There was no adjustment
for cost of living. The charts represent
sea days.
Discussion:
·
Jim
Holik – He sees all of the numbers and it is impossible to compare the costs
because of the institutional differences.
·
An
issue facing UNOLS is long term viability.
With the uncertainty in future schedules, how do UNOLS mariners make
this a career? The pool might be the
answer.
·
Jules
made the point that the people who have been around long started with lower
salaries and get small pay raises. New
employees are getting the higher salaries to begin with.
·
Some
institutions have steps to their marine tech positions and some do not.
·
Rich
Findley – It is not salary that is the driver for retention. It is the interesting work. Letting people do the things they enjoy.
Stewart summarized some of the recommendations
from the evaluation of this issue:
·
Remove
certain training costs from budgets so they are NOT included in the ship or
technical services day rates. The reason
for this recommendation is that the training is often cut during negotiations.
·
Investigate
the creation of the UNOLS Internship program in an attempt to certify and train
younger personnel to fill crew and technician positions. Train these people from the ground up.
·
Creation
of a position at the UNOLS office to formalize and manage the pool of “relief
personnel available,” promote the UNOLS fleet at various job fairs/maritime
schools, develop brochures and videos designed to increase awareness, monitor
morale in the fleet, etc.
·
Continue
to pursue higher base salaries for positions in the fleet; inevitably you get
what you pay for.
·
Development
of a pool of full-time, relief personnel (including technicians) that would be
available to ship out to any of the ships in the fleet
Discussion:
·
Dale
– recast the first bullet to state, “remove the training costs from the day
rate calculations.”
·
Jim
Holik – he feels that money is important.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
·
Richard
– not everything you get in industry is a good thing and may not be the model
that we would want.
A letter has been sent to Vernon Asper,
UNOLS Chair, with the study’s recommendations and hopefully it will get the
Council endorsement. They would like to
form an ad hoc committee of technicians and operators to formalize the
recommendations and draft a proposal that will be submitted to the agencies to
address the retention and recruitment issues.
A workshop of the ad hoc committee is tentatively scheduled for December
or early January and we hope to have the recommendations to the agencies by the
end of January.
Discussion:
·
Toby
– We keep directing our attention on Jim.
Jim doesn’t have any control over institution policies. There is a disconnect.
·
Joe
Ustach – Vessels are facing lay-ups. The
ship that is going to be laid up could be the tech pool for that particular
year. They could write a proposal to be
the pool. The Cape Hatteras has had to deal with lay-ups and they are a challenge.
·
Stewart
– This is exactly the goal. A pool would
provide options to the people with vessels that are laid up.
·
Marc
– Basically we have been doing this ad hoc.
This would formalize this process.
·
Phil
– USCG realized after Katrina and 9/11 that they need a deployable operations
group. He cautioned that you don’t want
the people no one else wants. You might
want to have a pool on each coast. Be
sure to offer training to the pool so that they are equipped to carry out their
responsibilities. If you set this up
correctly with a trained pool of employees, with steps for promotion, it can be
successful.
·
Dale
– Training is not the answer; it is an overused word. This should be considered “education.”
·
Jim
Holik – He is not advocating moving institution people to be contract
personnel. He disagrees that the pool
concept doesn’t promote retention. There
are people out there that would only want to be in a pool.
·
Rob
Hagg – He is battling this issue right now.
He needs to recruit people who are educated. At UW they just laid off a lot of IT
people. He is approaching these people
and determining who would like to go to sea.
He has his fingers crossed. They
also have a training course for undergrads.
·
Bruce
Appelgate – In the proposal we need to be very clear as to the path between the
problems and how the recommendations will solve the problems.
·
Vernon
– There is an under appreciation of the technicians. Scientists don’t appreciate the techs. At the University level, the faculty doesn’t
feel appreciated. However there are
things that faculty get – tenure, assistant/associate/senior positions, a say
in the operations. He would suggest that
the Council have a better appreciation of the techs and give them a larger say
in the operation. He thinks that having
the tech in the Ocean Class rep position is a good one that the Council did not
consider.
·
Dale
– Instead of stating that the workshop will provide a proposal, maybe we should
refer to it as a “plan.” The workshop
leads to a report, which leads to plan.
·
Jim
Holik – A lot of things that we are talking about cost money and the budget
isn’t growing. We have to do something. Status quo is not working.
·
Stewart
– To summarize, the problem has existed a long time and is growing. A letter has been sent to the Council. We will put together a small group of techs
and operators for the workshop. They
have been getting pressure from the agencies to do this.
·
Stewart
displayed the letter that had been sent to the Council along with the tentative
list of workshop names. He was asked to
do this by agencies.
·
Rich
Findley suggested that we table this discussion until we appoint an RVTEC
chair. (Findley/Perry). Motion carried.
Break
MATE Report
– Erica Moulton provided the MATE report. Her slides are contained as Appendix
XVIII. There have been some personnel
changes at MATE. Erica provided
statistics on the intern program and their experiences with UNOLS. She reported on the successes in 2008. There are ways that UNOLS operators can still
help MATE. Commit to providing
internship opportunities as early as possible this year so we can recruit and
place the best students. Volunteers are
needed and should contact Tami Lunsford.
Erica passed out a questionnaire and asked that RVTEC return them to
her.
How-To Manuals – Stewart Lamerdin said that there are various manuals explaining how
to: dredge, box core, piston core, net tow, do terminations, etc. These manuals are not catalogued in any way
and no one knows what is available. He
suggested that we appoint a committee
to collect manuals and create a single manual or make the documents centrally
available. Aubri Steele volunteered to take
this on.
Safe Working Load Spreadsheet – Rich Findley reported on Appendix A of the RVSS which
addresses Safe Working Loads. His slides
are included as Appendix XIX. Rich
started off by saying that he didn’t write RVSS Appendix A and it took days for
him to understand what they meant. Rich
reviewed useful definitions, the general concept, operating requirements for
Factors of Safety (FS) of 5.0 or greater, operating requirements for FS of 4.9
to 2.5, cable operating
requirements for FS of 2.4 to 2.0 and wire operating requirements for FS of 2.4
to 1.5.
The implications of Appendix A are:
•
Limited
to FS of 5 if tensiometer fails.
•
Applies
to all winches and tension members including those supplied by scientists.
•
If
you don’t have logbooks -- you can not operate.
This standard will be phased as soon
as the appropriate equipment can be funded and purchased and no later than 18
months after the published date of this revision of the RVSS. The new standard will present new responsibilities
for ship operators and winch operators in order operate at lowest FS.
The solution is to integrate and
automate. Rich described network nodes. These are an acquisition/logging system
attached to the winch. It is compatible
with installed sensors. The system is a
combination of solid state hard drives and Compact Flash memory. The ship network storage holds ship related
logs and stays with the ship.
The capabilities of the system are:
•
Takes
all the information available and shows real time minimum FoS
–
Operator
qualification
–
Last
determination of ABL
–
Blocks
within specification
•
Displays
current Operating Requirements
–
Deck
cleared, physical barriers etc.
•
Predicts
load – deviation would indicate approach of slack wire
•
Logs
everything –winch operator, winch, blocks in use and suitability, bending
cycles
•
Controls
fresh water spray bar
•
Could
control hydraulic by pass valve for auto render
Discussion:
·
Rich
emphasized the significance of the Appendix A standard.
·
Tim
McGovern – On Kilo Moana they are
operating at FS 2.5. They weren’t as bad
off as they thought they might be. Rich
– A SWATH is designed for this.
·
Bill
Fanning – How did you pick the 20 Hz sampling rate? Rich – It seemed to come from Matt who
perhaps got if from industry. Dale – it
would be nice to see how the 20Hz was derived.
What was the rationale?
·
Jules
– this doesn’t seem excessive. Rich – The
operator needs to keep this data for the life of the winch. It is a lot of data.
·
Dave
Fisichella – The only data we need to keep is the peak data. Rich – The standard states that you need to
keep all of the data.
·
Rich
Findley – The logging system records from the tapes in the wire.
·
Richard
Perry – what happens if you exceed the load?
Rich – You aren’t allowed to exceed the load.
·
Stewart
– What are the financial implications of the new requirements? Will NSF fund the logging systems? Jim Holik – Matt is aware of this and the
cost involved.
·
Marc
– with high capacity load cells they might be missing the high jerk loads. You may not see these high loads. The load cells themselves cannot mechanically
handle those loads.
·
Jules
– What do you do when a scientist brings on a Kevlar line? Marc – RVOC has raised the awareness of the regulatory
requirements that we must operate under.
First we have to deal with the ship winches. Then there are science supplied winches that
have no monitoring systems. Rich – According
to the USCG, in those cases, we can only operate to FS = 5. In order to allow operations at FS =2, we
need to do all of the measures – monitor loads, clear deck, etc.
·
Marc
– The standard is modeled after the UK’s practice. Rich- The UK fleet is only consists of about
two ships.
·
Richard
– Are wires grandfathered? How do you
deal with wires that are 10 years old and you have no data.
·
Dale
–We will be hard pressed to be in compliance within 18 months.
·
Phil
– Kevlar fails in a very different fashion.
If you are rotating the cable, it will be more susceptible to
rotation. Rich – This is why it hasn’t
been addressed.
Wire Workshop
– Rich Findley reported on plans for a wire workshop. Rich will be co-chair with Rick Trask. A new wire is available now that is one conductor. For operational reasons, we probably don’t
need 3 conductors, but it is nice to have three. This could be a cheap fix to improve working
loads.
Discussion:
·
Marc
– Was the inner armor increased? What
about outer armor? Rich – The inner armor
was increased and outer is the same.
·
Dale
– The new cable provides a 10% improvement.
·
A
constraint is that we must keep the wire size at .322”
·
Dale
– is there a big cost difference between this and the existing .322?
·
Rich
- should we change the focus of the wire workshop to implementation of the new
safe working load standard?
·
Dale
– He agrees with Rich’s recommendation
Adjoun - Day 2 Meeting
Lunch
1:00 pm - Bus
Departs for FSU Coastal and Marine Laboratory
2:30 pm - FSU
Coastal and Marine Laboratory Tour
Thursday October 30th – Research
Foundation Area – Building A, Room 120
8:30 am - Call Day 3 to Order and
Announcements
Determine Host Institution for 2009 RVTEC Meeting – Robb Hagg volunteered University
of Washington as host for the 2008 meeting.
The members voted all in favor
Knudsen Group Purchase – Rich Findley reported that the group purchase was for eight
3260 echosounders. He also purchased a
simulator. Rich purposely disconnected the
wire, and told RVTEC not to fix it. Coordinate
any issues through Miami. If you need
the simulator, contact Aubri.
Phoenix 4 –
Sandy funded (through Bill Martin) a factory exchange on ADCP deck units. Rich’s understanding is that if RDI has your ADCP
serial number, they should have another deck unit on their shelf that they
could switch out. Robb offered to look
into this.
Fleet Broadband – Dave Fisichella - The FB is about $5/MByte and the Fleet77 is more.
RVTEC Chair Nominations – Marc Willis introduced the two nominees; Dale Chayes and
Rich Findley:
Dale Chayes – Crew and retention is a big issue and we need to be more proactive
at it. The Charter doesn’t say anything
about RVTEC having to hear from talking heads.
We need to have more time devoted to discussions instead of reading off
slides. The meeting costs $50M. We need to think about how to use our time
more effectively.
Rich Findley – He disagrees on the
agency reports. He thinks it is
important that the group hears about the big picture and have a better
understanding of budgets. We are a
technology group. All of these small
groups that are put together should be video conferencing. The system that the UNOLS office is using is
archaic. We can do this using the best
technology. Tom Wilson should be
permanently funded out of the UNOLS budget.
Stewart – Members should provide
their vote to Annette on a piece of paper.
Show & Tell Presentations:
Pumped Mocness
– Rich Findley introduced Greg Diffendale from RSMAS who gave a talk on Pumped
Mocness. The issues are that standoffs
are easily bent, they are hard to move by hand, and the rods are unprotected. As a solution, RSMAS made a set of legs for
rod protection.
·
Steve
Hartz – UAF did a similar thing. The Mocness
is in a cradle and the electronics are on the outside and easy to get to. They ship the system with the cradle and it
is easy to move around.
·
Greg
– They also have a cradle and have added wheels. This week the legs for the prototype are
being built.
·
Richard
suggested color coding the components.
·
Marc
– What cad tool did they use? Greg – AutoCad.
Pressure Actuated Line Cutter – Dave Fisichella’s slides are included as Appendix
XXII. He reported on his hydrostatic
pressure actuated cable cutter. They wanted
something that was inexpensive and reliable.
It hasn’t been used in the field, but it has been tested in the pressure
tank with great success. The design
concept uses shear pins and offers safe, portable, reliable, one time use, ease
of deployment, and minimal number of parts system. This is a method of last resort in emergency
situations. Josh Eaton developed the
system.
They hope to not have to use the
cutter, it is an insurance system. It
allows you to save as much of the cable as possible. They are trying to get the cost down to $500.
·
Dale
– Is there a minimum depth (not enough pressure)? Dave – yes.
·
Marc
– back to the future. They used shear
pins to actuate the MocNess.
·
Shawn
– what is the fabrication time? Dave – a
couple of hours.
·
Dave
is willing to share the drawings.
·
Dale
– Maybe we should think about making a batch of these.
Alternative winch/wire monitoring system using National Instruments
hardware and software – Jim Lovin provided the show and tell presentation. See Appendix XXIII. They tried to size the system so that someone
wearing heavy gloves could still manage it.
It has been designed for the new regulations. Jim gave a demo of the new wire monitoring
system.
Dale – we have been abandoned by
winch and wire monitoring equipment vendors.
We are in the same boat so maybe we should pool our expertise and
develop something ourselves.
Using SmokePing as a monitoring tool – Toby Martin showed the web pages on the monitoring
tool. See Appendix XXV.
SAMOS Metadata Interface- Data providers can manipulate their vessels' metadata as
soon as parameter designators, instruments or instrument locations change. Jeremy
Rolph provided a demonstration of its functionality. It is important to keep the metadata up to
date. Each institution gets a password
for their institution. He demonstrated
how to update the metadata.
·
Shawn
- there is also has a vessel metadata form.
This form would only have to be filled out once. Everything is date stamped.
·
Steve
– Is there a shipboard client in case the web is unavailable? Shawn – That is a good suggestion.
·
Dale
– There needs to be a link on a page that allows you to report things that
might be incorrect with the sight.
Two-ship SWAP in the Arctic – Dale Chayes provided the show and tell. His slides are in Appendix XXIV. They
implemented SWAP on two icebreakers (Healy
and St. Laurent). Their goal was to provide a continuous
connection between the ship’s science groups working in close proximity. There is a diagram of swap link in the
slides. In summary:
·
There
were simultaneous confounding start-up issues: connections, connectors, corrupt
flash
·
The
range was less than expected, perhaps due to icing. There is some question on the impact of icing
on RF in this range.
·
There
were routing problems and the link often did not “recover” itself.
·
Antenna
field of view is always an issue
·
Keeping
it running and helping users was labor intensive
·
However,
it was very effective for science.
Marc – He assumes that there are
lessons learned that could be applied to future operations.
Dale – it was worth it, but it was a
big time sink.
The Automatic Identification System
(AIS) was briefly discussed.
-
An
AIS receiver and antenna was purchased.
-
Used
existing code http://vislab-ccom.unh.edu
RVTEC Meeting Action Items: Stewart Lamerdin reviewed the
meeting Action Items. They are listed at
the beginning of these minutes.
Chair Election Results – The new RVTEC Chair is Rich Findley.
There was a motion to include funding
in the budget for Tom Wilson to attend future RVTEC meetings.
The RVTEC group thanked Shawn,
Meredith, and Michelle for hosting the 2008 meeting.
A motion was made and passed to adjourn the 2008 RVTEC meeting (Willis/Findley).