(Focus Groups met on Tuesday, November, 17th)
A copy of these minutes are available as a pdf by clicking: <200911rvtmi.pdf>
Meeting Minutes
Executive
Summary: The 2009 RVTEC Meeting was hosted by the University of
Washington on 18-20 November. Rich Findley, RVTEC Chair, presided over the meeting. The meeting agenda was full. A few of the major discussion topics
included the:
· Satellite Communications
· Data Collection Systems including a session
on the Rolling Deck to Repository (R2R) Initiative
· Network Security
· Winch and Wires
· The Marine Technician Retention and
Recruitment Initiative
A new feature of the
RVTEC meeting that was introduced in 2009 was the “Year in Review.” Each marine
technician group was asked to provide a brief presentation recapping the
highlights of their annual operations including the most challenging issue or
biggest technical hurdle.
The agenda also
included reports from agency representatives, committee reps, and subcommittee
liaisons. Tours of the University
of Washington ship and facilities were provided. 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 Vice Chair.
Daryl Swenson from Oregon State University was elected.
Appendices
|
I |
|
|
II |
|
|
III |
|
|
IV |
|
|
V |
|
|
VI |
|
|
VII |
|
|
VIII |
|
|
IX |
|
|
X |
|
|
XI |
|
|
XII |
|
|
XIII |
|
|
XIV |
|
|
XV |
|
|
XVI |
|
|
XVIIa |
|
|
XVIIb |
|
|
XVIIc |
|
|
XVIII |
|
|
XIX |
|
|
XX |
|
|
XXI |
|
|
XXII |
|
|
XXIII |
|
|
XXIV |
|
|
XXV |
|
|
XXVI |
|
|
XXVII |
|
|
XXVIII |
|
|
XXIX |
|
|
XXX |
|
|
XXXI |
|
|
XXXII |
|
|
XXXIII |
|
|
XXXIV |
WHOI-Developed Ethernet Telemetry
System for UNOLS CTD Cables |
|
XXXV |
Meeting Summary:
Tuesday November 17th -- Pre-meeting Working
Groups meetings were held on Tuesday, November 17, 2009. The working groups included:
· HiSeasNet Focus Group
(Accelerators)
· SWATH Multibeam Focus
Group
Wednesday November 18th – Center for Urban
Horticulture, NHS Hall
Meeting Called to Order
- Rich Findley, RVTEC Chair, called the 2009 RVTEC meeting to order at 8:30 am.
Rich mentioned that he has been a part of RVTEC since it’s very first
meeting. William Wilcock of the University of Washington (UW) welcomed RVTEC
to UW. He stated that the marine
technicians are often taken for granted, yet it is the
service and expertise of the techs that make our fleet effective. William said that it has been a tough
year with the loss of UW technicians Bill Martin and then Mike Relander. He
thanked RVTEC for coming to UW.
RVTEC
meeting participants introductions were made. The meeting agenda is included as Appendix I and the
participant list is included as Appendix II.
Accept
2008 RVTEC Minutes – Dave O’Gorman made a motion to accept the 2009
minutes. Jim Postal provided a
second. The motion passed.
RVTEC
Vice-Chair Election – Individuals interested in the RVTEC vice-chair
position were encourated to contact Marc Willis
(Nominating Committee).
Agency Reports:
National Science Foundation (NSF) – Jim Holik
provided the report for NSF. His
slides are included as Appendix III. The
NSF Appropriation for FY 2010 has not been passed and NSF is operating under a
Continuing Resolution. In the
President’s request for 2010, there are rumors of anywhere from a 6% to a 9% increase for NSF. It is unclear what
amount will actually be appropriated.
There are pressures from the federal budget deficit that will likely
make for a very austere 2011; however, if you have something you need,
propose it. NSF was able to
accomplish a lot with the stimulus funding (ARRA) ($3.3 Billion for NSF).
The ARRA funds supported the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) with
the first ARRA award of $148M.
The ARRA funds provided 20M for ship operations. This allowed for funding over 500
additional NSF ship days (>50% global) and $17M for SSSE/OI.
Funds would be provided for the winch pool, multibeam upgrades and new
installations, and seismic equipment.
New initiatives this year
include R2R and Marine Tech Retention program.
Office of
Naval Research (ONR) – Tim Schnoor provided the report for the Office of
Naval Research. His slides are
included as Appendix IV. The
Navy’s fleet usage and budget has been flat for many years. Tim anticipates that the number of days
the Navy can support will go down
because costs are going up.
Some of the Navy ship activities this year have
included ship propulsion issues, AGOR inspections, and the Ocean Class
Acquisition Program.
United States Coast Guard (USCG) – Dave Forcucci provided the USCG report. A few years ago the budget authority for Healy operation was transferred to NSF. The Antarctica McMurdoe
ice break-out was outsourced to the Swedish research
vessel Oden this year. Polar Sea supported
two Arctic research cruises last year.
The ice beaker Polar Star is
in port in a semi mothball status.
Major renovations are needed.
This year marks Healy’s first decade of
operations. Currently the ship is
in Todd Shipyard for a maintenance period. The shafts are being pulled and they are replacing the SeaBeam multibeam system with a Kongsberg 322.
In the future, budget authority for the
Healy operations might come back to Coast Guard.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Mike Webb
provided the NOAA report. NOAA
received a lot of ARRA funds and built a new fisheries ship, FSV 7. This vessel will replace the Jordan and it is ready for
deployment. Last year NOAA took
delivery of Pisces. Shimada
has yet not met ICES so NOAA has not yet accepted the vessel. ARRA funds were also spent on vessel
maintenance.
NOAA’s west coast vessels are moving from Seattle
to Newport, Oregon.
RVTEC Subcommittee
Reports:
Post Cruise Assessment Report (PCAR) Committee – Annette DeSilva
provided a brief update on the PCAR committee. The members of the committee include Bob Collier (Chair),
Wilf Gardner, Joe Malbrough, and Mary-Lynn Dickson. In the upcoming year, the Committee will review PCARs for the Global ships. They will also look at introducing a new on-line form. Mary-Lynn has decided to step down from
the committee and a new RVTEC rep will be needed.
Safety Committee – Rich Findley provided the Safety Committee
report. The focus of attention is
on Appendix A (Wires and Cables) of the Research Vessel Safety Standards
(RVSS). Everyone will need a
strong understanding of Appendix A in order to comply. It will introduce major changes and equipment
will need updating.
If RVTEC members have any
safety issues, they should raise them with Rich. He will bring them to the Committee.
RVTEC Education
Subcommittee
– Aubrey Steele provided the Education committee report. Her slides are included as Appendix V
and cover “How-To Manuals” and “Training and Certificates.” How-To Manuals should be step-by-step
and easy for anyone to replicate.
There should be standardization of procedures and consistency. Compilations of Shipboard Technicians’
notes on procedures and manufacturers’ web pages are also useful for “how to
manuals.” It is useful to include
photos, equipment specs, drawings, and pin-outs for reference.
Aubri provided 2009 training highlights from the
HighSeasNet (HSN) workshop. It was
an NSF funded workshop with attendance from 7 institutions and 11 participants. Karl Kapusta (CommSystems) and Steve
Foley (UCSD) led the instruction.
A Ku-band antenna was leased for the 4-day workshop for hands-on
learning. Key Points from the HSN
Workshop included:
§ Satellite theory
background
§ SeaTel antenna system
background, operations & troubleshooting
§ Comtech modem operations
& troubleshooting
§ Amplifiers
§ Codan RF operations &
troubleshooting
§ HiSeasNet data flow &
troubleshooting
§ HiSeasNet structure,
policies, procedures
Some future technician training topics that have been
suggested include:
§ ADCPs, Teledyne RD
Instruments
§ CTD/TSGs/mod sensors,
Sea-Bird Electronics
§ Fiber Optic training,
Fiber Instrument Sales (Nationwide) or Corning
§ Salinometers, Guildline
Instruments or (OSI – Standard seawater provider)
§ HiSeasNet again
§ Basic Safety Training
§ Depthsounders, Knudsen
Systems
§ Applanix, POSMV Inertial
Positioning system
§ LabView, National Instruments
§ Computer Certifications (A+, CompTIA, etc)
§ Electronics 101
§ Rigging
§ Crane Ops and/or basic
Hydraulic Systems
§ Multibeam Systems
§ SCS [NOAA’s DAC System]
§ ISO/Quality
Assurance/Quality Improvement
§ Team Building –
Jung/Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [MBTI]
RVTEC nominations for
PCAR Subcommittee - Dave Fisicella has expressed an interest in being the RVTEC rep
to the PCAR Committee.
Jamestown Marine Service (JMS) Ship
Inspection Program – Ted Colburn (JMS) provided the report. His slides are included as Appendix
VI. Ted provided the names
of the Ship Inspection Team. Inspections
offer good opportunities to learn how things are done on each of the UNOLS
ships.
Ted focused on the Inspection Perspectives as the RVSS Appendix
A becomes implemented. The operator
selects the Factor of Safety (FS) based on operational needs or system
configuration. If what is needed exceeds what
can be achieved by the configuration of components there is an opportunity to
comment on the ship condition form. Operators will be completing a
“Rope and Cable Safe Working Load” table.
Ted’s slides gave
examples of working with two Factors of Safety; FS = 5.0 and FS = 2.5 (see slides). He highlighted the increase in
requirements when working with a Factor of Safety of 2.5. You must have the ability to keep the load < SWL. The load must be the
actual
load read from the monitoring system (not calculated). There must be audible and visual
tension alarms with data logging . Cable/Wire break testing is required every two years. The wire logs must include the winch and system manufacturer when sending
the wire back to WHOI. The data
log must include the number and/or
duration of deployments between testing, the measured maximum tension for each
cast, the measured maximum payout for each cast, and
alarms. There will be a learning
curve.
Questions/Discussion:
· How did the inspection on
the Polar Sea workout? Ted – Their winches were in
pretty good shape. They had done a
lot of work on the sheaves.
· Dave Fisichella – If
an operator wants to do a break-test, they can send the wire to WHOI with the
termination. This is useful
because it gives you the strength of the termination.
· Rich Findley – Is
the wire break-test done with a fixed end? Dave – yes.
Break
Communications:
Summary of Satellite Meeting – Rich Findley
provided the report. His slides
contain the summary and are included as Appendix VII.
Fleet Broadband – Dave Fisichella and Laura Stolp provided a
Fleet Broadband (FBB) report.
Their slides are included as Appendix VIII . Dave reported that FBB was evaluated as
a backup for HSN. The operator has
to monitor the FBB system actively.
The good news is that a new satellite rate has been negotiated.
Laura reported that so
far the FBB system has worked well in switching between HSN and FBB
automatically. If you have to do
work over the FBB it is very slow.
One of the slides showed the FBB transmission speeds from Knorr and Atlantis
speeds. They never saw the advertised
speed.
Discussion:
· Dave Forcucci – Did
you see the bandwidth use of crew compared to science. Laura – The crew was very
cautious in their use. They got
what they wanted and turned it off.
The science basically did the same.
· Jim Holik – FBB was
purchased as a backup system for HSN and it is still considered a pilot
program. He wouldn’t mind seeing a
proposal for a better way to manage FBB.
There is a lot of uneasiness about using FBB. He would be interested is seeing one protocol developed for
using FBB.
· Is there some way of
seeing the use level of FBB as is being used or say every few months so that you
can tell if you are approaching your annual allotment. Laura – Not right now. Jim – It would be a good feature.
· The FBB rate is $1.52/MB. If the system use is left unmonitored, the
bill could run up to $6100/day.
· Jim Holik – There
should be a mechanism such that if a scientist needs to use streaming he/she
should be able to, even if it is over the allotment level. A mid-year user allotment status would
be a very nice feature. A fleet
policy is needed.
HiSeasNet recap of Focus Group – Steve Foley could
not attend the RVTEC meeting, so Jon Meyer gave the report for Steve. The summary of the HSN focus group
meeting is provided in the slides that are included as Appendix IX.
In 2009, HSN was installed
on Atlantic Explorer. There have
been bandwidth changes for different operations areas. A HSN training class was offered at Scripps
Institution of Oceanography (SIO) in August 2009. If there is interest in another workshop, contact Steve.
Network accelerators are
being rolled out fleet-wide. Two
ships were test in 2009 and proved positive. Installations will be ongoing as gear is deployed to ships. Ku-band ships seem to prefer a bigger
footprint to more bandwidth. There
have been a lot of tech-to-tech discussions of policies that do and do not work
on various ships. Management of
user expectations of HiSeasNet services and capabilities is needed.
General discussion of FBB and HSN:
· Jim Holik – They
are spending about the same level of funding on the two systems.
· Jules Hummon– For
her use, the FBB has been great.
· Jon Meyer - One of the
things that were of concern is that the carrier charges you every 12 hours even
if you don’t use the system. So
you get charged for the Megabyte whether or not you use it. Fortunately it is
cheaper.
· For technical issues on
FBB, whom do you contact? It is
difficult to get a hold of someone. Dave Fisichella – Contact Al Suchy.
· Dale Chayes– The
list server for RVTEC is very useful.
If you discuss your problem in private, no one knows the problem and no
one will learn from it. He
recommended that WHOI/Al Suchy create a listserve for FBB.
· Tim McGovern – He
was surprised that the same amount of money is being spent on FBB as is on
HSN. Would it be better to spend the
FBB funds on HSN.
· Jon Meyers – What
about buying more bandwidth for HSN.
Jim Holik – So you want two antennas? Jon – yes.
· Bill Fanning – The
KuBand footprint is too small. Endeavor is often out of the footprint.
· Dave – FBB or any
other system is an independent back up to HSN.
· Dale – Even most of
the large ships can’t install second antenna. The negotiated rate for FBB is a huge step forward.
Iridium OpenPort – Dave Hassilev
provided the report. His slides
are included as Appendix X. Dave
discussed the OpenPort features and deficits. HTML interface occasionally fails.
OpenPort was used aboard the CGC Polar Sea on the cruise from September
25 to November 1, 2009 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (operating areas were 72
– 74 N0).
OpenPort had seven antennas plus
GPS. The deficits included that when
you have an error, you might not know it and you might still be transmitting. If you don’t have your antennae
properly placed, you won’t see a satellite. For 300 minutes of voice, the price was about
$1200-1500/month. Protocols must
be efficient.
In terms of usage, FTP was
very good. The Web is very
expensive. VPN is supported, but
has not been tested. When a
satellite leaves your range, the system should find another satellite, but this
can be a lengthy process and you might lose your application.
Email use with OpenPort requires a shore side gateway. There must be strict quota management
on both ends and this is expensive.
File transfers with OpenPort had highly variable success rates and speeds. There were many stalled transfer
sessions.
Dave said that from his experience,
OpenPort was a good solution for high latitudes. The system offers a quickly deployable network solution
for smaller platforms or camps. It
will (generally) get the job done.
Discussion:
· Marshall Swartz – He
was on a Russian ship this summer and the ship had the OpenPort
system. They had very fast
dropouts and sometimes they lost the system within seconds. Dave H – They
hadn’t seen sub-minute sessions, but there were often interruptions. There is set-up time for each session;
this would take time and eat up minutes of the satellite pass.
· Dave Forcucci –
would multiple antennas help? Dave
H – No. Placement and a 360-degree
view is key. Satellites rarely go
overhead at high latitude (the Arctic).
· Dave Forcucci – Did
you play with the antennae location?
Dave H – A little bit
· Dale Chayes – He
has had two OpenPort systems in the field at
82N. He saw the same
behaviors. They probably had
better antennae locations. The OpenPort hardware implementation is very biased toward
power management in the sense of minimizing satellite (transponder) usage. It often feels that it has powered
off. It feels like it is an end-user
product. It is the only viable option
at high latitude. The antennas are
relatively small and light compared to the conventional dynamic antennas that
we are used to seeing.
· Dave H – On the Healy, they had a good antenna
location, but still saw similar issues.
· David O’Gorman –
Inmarsat separation from the Iridium antennae is required (he found this out by
looking in the manual). On Wecoma, they made special fixture for
it.
SWAP – Toby Martin reviewed the topics that would be covered
in the Friday SWAP Focus Group.
His slides were included Appendix XI. SWAP2 is working well. On Friday they will try new protocols
to see how easy it is to have a SWAP system.
Discussion:
· Andy Maffei – SWAP
is very valuable.
· Marc Willis – SWAP
presents a very different model.
There was a group of people who were interested in this type of
communication. They gave
themselves a mandate and implemented it (without a proposal). It worked well.
Lunch Break
Data Collection Systems
and Initiatives:
UHDAS and ADCP update – Julia Hummon provided the
presentation. Her slides are
included as Appendix XII.
Jules said that the most
common interaction she has with the marine tech groups is telling them to reset
their Ashtech systems. There is
now UHDAS on 11 UNOLS ships, two Antarctic Polar vessels (Palmer and Gould) and the
KOK. Since last year there were seven upgrades. There was a new installation on the New Horizon. There was a science request to add a triggering option and
this was added. Endeavor offered Jules her first
experience with FBB. They gave her
a port and it was great. They get
the award for the most GPS feeds.
There was also a new
Installation on the Atlantic Explorer. This was also the result of a science
request. This was a challenging
installation because of electrical interference, poor range (instrument
placement in well), and acoustically noisy.
Minor problems that Jules
has had to deal with include high maintenance scientists, bugs, and attitude (Ashtech,
PHINS failures, and POSMV). Major problems
were experienced when a deck unit failed on Wecoma
and it took two weeks to figure out a solution. The Knorr had a
strange (electric) failure that is still under investigation.
Improvements since the last
RVTEC include processing plots and calibration written in Python as part of
their migration away from Matlab.
There is a new request
for ADCP metadata. Some of the
data that is of interest includes:
-
Instrument complement
-
Location and drawings of installations
-
Ancillary instruments
-
Photos
-
Other info (cable run, window, plumbing, etc.)
Jules’s goal is to
assemble this data over the next year.
Jules’s continuing
request to the tech groups is to keep her in the loop regarding new ADCPs,
changes in serial feeds, and new attitude devices. Finally, feel free to refer your needy scientists to Jules. Anyone out there can use UHDAS open
source processing – you don’t have to have a UHDAS.
Discussion:
· Tim McGovern – Has
Ashtech done anything to improve their system. Jules – Not that she knows of.
· Jon Meyer – Can you
change the green light to yellow light?
Jules – She will make this request of Erik Firing (who writes the
code).
· Jon Meyer – Would
you program UHDAS so that it can reset the Ashtech? Jules – Can’t do it.
· Jules – They use
Linux. For ADCP use, they need to
send a break to the ADCP and must also collect binary data.
· Jon Meyers – Do you
have a plan to update the documentation?
Jules – Go to the site and download a Tar ball. Everyone should have this.
OSU Data Collection - Daryl Swenson introduced the OSU group. Their slides are included as Appendix
XIII. Dave O’Gorman gave an overview of what OSU collects. He reviewed the data selection and data
formatting. They decided to use
XML. It no way limits the various
end users.
Toby Martin continued the
presentation. He discussed data
transport, security (malicious,
inadvertent), and protocol (TCP vs. UDP). They went with TCP because of reliability and flexibility. Data recording and distribution were
described (see slides). Moving
large amounts of data (~8 gigabytes per day) to shore is going to be a
challenge and they are looking for guidance from R2R.
In summary, the OSU
system provides network sensor interface, increased sample frequency, and ease
of use for users and technicians.
Discussion:
· Bill Fanning – What
will be the price be? Dave
O’Gorman – It is $250 /per board, but they are waiting for more info.
· Dale Chayes – Do
you have multiple inputs from within the firewall? How do you handle time-outs and failures in the system? Dave – They don’t collect data on
their nodes. The interruption
would not be collected.
· Alex Dorsk - How do you
configure the boards? Dave –
Their plan is to have a web interface for the boards so that the tech can just
log it in.
· Jon Meyer – Are
they putting data to two separate servers. Dave – Yes.
· Jon Meyer – What if
a server has a problem, how do you reconcile the data? Toby – This is always a problem.
· Anthony Johnson –
Are you replacing serial ports?
Daryl – People will always want the serial ports.
· How will they give the
data to users? Daryl – In the
future portable hard drives will be needed. They will also send them to R2R, but they don’t know how
this will happen.
· Dave Forcucci – How
many ships in the UNOLS fleet will need this? Daryl – OSU had a problem with their legacy DAS
system, and needed to solve it.
This is why they came up with their system.
LDEO Data System - Dale Chayes described the Lamont Data System
(LDS). His slides are included as Appendix
XIV. LDS based instances
from 1987 to 2009 consisted of DAQCS (for the SCICEX cruises) and RVDAS (on the
Palmer and Gould) among others.
The design drivers were to be as simple as possible and be operational 24/7,
365 days a year. The system had to
reliably capture and log what comes out of the devices (no missing data),
provide accurate time stamping, and be based on standard protocols.
Implementation included:
· Unix-based OS
· C & Perl
· Single process per
“device”
· Real-time access to data
w/o risk to the acquisition process
· Distributed (network)
logging devices
· Command-line interface
Dale reviewed the LDS history
dating back to 1987, new/recent system features, and future plans. Some of the future plans include:
· Integration of EM122 for
direct (network) capture of data from SIS.
· Precision timed camera
image capture
· GUI (control) wrapper
· Enhanced automatic event
logging
They developed the LDS
system and by design there is no realistic way that a downstream user can disrupt
your acquisition system but they can do whatever they want to their copy of the
data. The system is simple and
reliable. LDEO uses UDP internally
and externally.
Discussion:
· Toby Martin – So is
this an endorsement of UDP? Dale
– Yes. It is good
enough. Val Schmidt did a fair
amount of testing trying to break UDP.
The amount of load you have to impose is huge. They thought about going to multicast, but have not yet. They may revisit it.
ISS-2000 Integrated Survey System – ISS-2000 is a software package for surveying that integrates inputs
from the sonar systems, dynamic positioning system, and data acquisition systems,
all with a graphic user interface (GUI). – John Keirnan (SAIC)
provided a description of the system.
His slides are included as Appendix XV. The ISS 2000 is a system similar to
what is on the Navy TAGS ships.
ISS-2000 Integrated
Survey System (ISS) overview is included in the slides and describe the functional
components and the strengths and benefits of using an ISS.
The ISS-2000 real-time
data acquisition system includes a workstation with timing module. The internal timing card receives an
analog 1 PPS signal and serial time message to synchronize to the GPS receiver. The serial message options are NMEA
ZDA, UTC, and Time Mark 1B.
For system setup, the
antenna and transducer lever offsets are entered and applied. Vessel parameters for settlement and
squat, and towfish block offsets are set.
Program selection, error limits, timeout values and data logging
intervals are entered. The
operator can control many of the equipment settings from ISS-2000 software
through Parameter Control interfaces.
The system does not increase the number of operators required and
provides a single control interface for different equipment. Sensor parameters are monitored to
user-defined parameters. Messages are
generated by sensor errors, survey operations, performance information and
operator entered text messages.
ISS-2000 is designed to
automatically alarm the operator when the system is exceeding the operator set
parameters. The system allows the
operator to monitor the integrated system in real-time. Data types include informational and
event messages, and caution, warning, and severe alarms. The Navigation Display
allows the operator to view the data in real-time while monitoring the survey
progress and navigation information, including survey lines and swath coverage. The system provides steering commands
to the DP and/or autopilot systems. Multibeam data can be viewed in real-time to verify data
quality. SVP casts can be applied
and verified in real-time. Towfish and ROV positioning is enhanced using proven
algorithms. Coring and bottom
investigations are used to ground truth sidescan mosaics.
ISS provides the
strongest support for MG&G operations. Data from multibeam swath mapping sonar system recorded to
OEM and open format GSF. Generic Sensor Format (GSF) is a standard file format
for bathymetry data and widely used in the maritime community. Many multibeam sonars provide one
or more outputs of acoustic backscatter.
Biological, Physical and
Chemical Oceanography systems and sensors are not tightly integrated and are
run independent of main ship systems. Ship and/or tow body position and time
synchronization can be transmitted to workstations collecting and recording
data. Survey planning includes waypoint
surveys. Data archive can be
managed using ISS at the end of survey.
Discussion:
· Dale Chayes – What
is the pricing? John – There
are various options that are available.
The Baseline system is $25k to $30K. Dale – What is in the baseline system? John – Add-ons are multibeam
($5K), another attitude, POSMV, etc.
· Dale Chayes – What
is the annual maintenance cost?
John – there is a 15% annual maintenance cost.
Break
Rolling Deck to Repository (R2R) Initiative – Bob Arko provided
an R2R overview. His slides
are included as Appendix XVI. This
September the R2R project was funded.
The design principles of the project are to
-
Work directly with the operators – if the vessel is
over 50 feet, and if funded by NSF, it will be a candidate.
-
R2R is taking a web centric approach.
-
There will be routine submission to the national data
centers.
The current status is:
-
12 vessels are actively submitting data
-
1000+ cruises have been inventoried
-
3.8 million data files archived.
Much of the cruise metadata
exists and R2R will try to get this from sources that already collect the data
– UNOLS Office, port offices, etc.
They are interested in
· Cruise summary
· Science party
· Instrumentation
The R2R next steps
include:
· Identify R2R contacts
· Real Time MET/TSG
· Event log development +
deployment
Discussion:
· Jon Meyer – What
about other data? Bob – They
will accept anything.
· Jon Meyer – What
about processed data? Bob –
they really only want to accept data from the operators. If the processed data is from the
operator they will accept it. They
are figuring out how to identify raw from processed.
· William – When will
the R2R have a standardized data format?
Bob – There is no standard format for accepting data. So far, they haven’t seen anything that
they cannot deal with.
· Bob Arko – R2R will
not release data unless it is cleared by the PI. It will be sent after 2 years, unless notified.
· Toby – What about
real-time data. Bob – R2R
wants the post cruise data, no decision on the other data.
· Doug – Will the
operator have the option to not send the data? As an example, cruises for commercial work. Bob – They have not seen an
instance yet. Marshall Schwartz –
The Saudi Arabia work on Oceanus is
an example. Bob – As a minimum
they would want the cruise metadata.
· Jim Holik – What
about historical data? Bob –
For a few ships they are looking at back data to 2000.
· Jon Meyer – It
would be great to have Multibeam data under every cruise track. Bob Arko – This won’t happen in
year one, but would be a very cool idea for year 2.
R2R Technical Breakout - Real-time MET and TSG Data Exchange –
This breakout session was led by Shawn Smith and included an open discussion
between UNOLS operators and the SAMOS data center to design an underway
meteorology and thermosalinograph data exchange to support real-time data
quality evaluation. The discussion
focused on transmission formats, parameters to exchange, timeliness of
ship-to-shore transmissions, and feedback to operators. Shawn’s slides are included as Appendix
XVIIc.
Discussion;
· Marc Willis – He is
confused about the timing of submitting the data. Shawn – They want their data before the R2R data.
· Marc – Location
should be a separate field.
· Are you getting data that
you can’t use? Shawn – They
haven’t been getting the 1 HZ data from the Fleet.
· Anthony Johnson – They
have 7 sources of navigation – do you want them all? Shawn – yes. It would be good to find out what is
the best navigation system on-board.
· Shawn –They can develop
a best practices document.
· Jon Meyer – What
about putting a SAMOS server on the ships. Then you can collect all of the feeds that you want. Shawn – Then we get into hardware
issues; however, this is something that he hadn’t thought about. It is an interesting idea.
· Marc - UHDAS is a great
model. There is a log-in box on the ship that Jules can log into and she
monitors activities.
· Shawn – What do people
think about this? Daryl - he likes
the idea.
· Tim McGovern – You
will get a lot more buy-in from operators by using Jules’ UHDAS model.
· Shawn – It is a
great idea, but it is out of the SAMOS expertise – they don’t build
hardware. Marc – it is not
complicated.
· Robbie Laird - We don’t
have all of these sensors. Can
Shawn, provide a list of the high priority sensors? Shawn – Yes, they have high priority items –
radiometer, PARs. Robbie Laird
– publishing the list would be helpful.
· Anthony – He would
like a best practices manual.
Shawn – This is important.
There is an old manual; he can try to make it more procedural.
R2R Technical Breakout - Event Logger System – This breakout was
led by Alex Dorsk and Cyndy Chandler. An event logging application is being
developed as part of the R2R program. An early prototype version was
introduced, followed by hands-on use of the application for those with laptops
and discussion of design features, functionality and next steps for deployment
on UNOLS vessels. Their
presentations are included as Appendix XVIIa
and XVIIc.
Adjourn Day 1
Thursday, November 19th – Center for Urban
Horticulture, NHS Hall
Call to Order & Announcements – Rich Findley
called Day 2 of the RVTEC meeting to order at 8:30 am.
Network Security – Dave Dittrich (UW) provided a presentation
on Network Security. His slides
are included as Appendix XVIII.
Dave started off by
saying that the Internet is very unsafe.
He reviewed the principal threat categories, or things that people have
to worry about including data theft and espionage, fraud, disruption of
operations, and extortion. Threats
happen every day.
Espionage/Data theft can
occur as a result of targeted spam with Trojan horse, executable attachments,
media files/documents with embedded content, key loggers or “root kits” installed,
data exfiltrated by POST or reverse tunnel through firewall, and surplused
equipment. You must wipe your
drives before sending computer/drives to surplus or recycle.
Fraud is big problem. It is unauthorized access to steal
data. Phishing is social
engineering via email. There are
various attack mechanisms:
-
Social engineering and exploiting trust – these are
when you are contacted personally for information.
-
Bypassing technical defenses
-
Eluding capture through concealment
-
Avoiding detection for long periods of time
Propagation mechanisms
include:
-
Exploitation of remotely accessible vulnerabilities in
Windows.
-
Email to targets obtained from WAB except those containing
specific substrings. Messaging AIM
and MSN buddy list members with randomly formed sentence.\ and URL
-
Trojan horse SETUP.EXE from free download site. Very sneaky
-
Trojan Horse dropper
associated with celebrity video clips. “Suddam Hussein is alive – click here to open”
Toby Martin – What
about the Sony root kit? Dave
– The root kit had a problem with it. You can’t get rid of it because it is hidden.
Stolen passwords are a
problem. Don’t share accounts and
passwords among systems. You
quickly get wide scale propagation.
Dave encouraged everyone
to rethink defensive posture.
· Information Assurance
(IA) is defined to be, “measures that protect and defend information and
information systems by ensuring their availability, integrity, authentication,
confidentiality, and non-repudiation.”
· “These measures include
providing for restoration of information systems by incorporating protection,
detection, and reaction capabilities.”
You might be able to tell if your system has been compromised if your data
change when you haven’t touched it.
Preventive measures
include:
· Apply layered &
complementary defenses
· Do all: Protect, Detect, and React
· Not all solutions are
technical
· Support those tackling
the hard problems with policy and resources
Isolation of untrusted
devices:
· Trusted devices on
secured AP
· Un-trusted devices on
open AP (outside firewall: can only talk to the internet) – you can take
these down quickly
· Alt: Use PPTP, IPSec or
other VPN to tunnel in to trusted network
· Constantly scan hosts
(nmap) and analyze traffic (ntop, Snort, etc.)
Discussion:
· Stewart Lamerdin –
What is cloud computing? Dave
– Everything seems to have clouds.
Cloud computing is an interesting combination of things. In old days everything was centralized
on main frames. Then things were
outsourced to separate user laptops.
Now there is a move to virtualize – this is basically
centralizing. With cloud
computing, you can’t really tell were the data is located. If you say you want to delete the data,
how do you know it was actually deleted?
If you are in the middle of ocean and your laptop is compromised from
Astoria – where did the crime occur? Cloud/virtual
computing has many benefits.
· Alex Dorsk – What
are some favorite tools? Dave
– There are tools listed on his website.
· Robbie Laird – In
Massachusetts there are requirements/laws for data protection/breeches. Dave
– In Italy, if it is shown that your computer was involved in a breech
and you didn’t take the necessary precautions, you can be prosecuted.
· Robbie Laird – What
about people coming aboard the ship with computers that have personal
data. Dave – Have each
person be aware of the security measures and take responsibility for them.
· Jim Postel – Yesterday
we talked about giving people access to shipboard data – how can we
maintain security? Dave – Make
everyone aware of the policies.
· Jim Postel – How
much time do you devote to this when you are trying to get underway? Dave – It is a tough balance.
· Marshall Schwartz –
There was a ham radio operator who provided information. The information was compromised and the
operator was considered an ISP.
Can ships be considered an ISP?
Dave – It depends.
His read – potentially anyone with an Internet can potentially be
an ISP and law enforcement can use the info to search with warrants. You might want to at least figure out
what can be done to accommodate law enforcement. Keep logs.
· Robb Hagg – He has
heard rumor that some institutions scan computers. Robbie Laird – WHOI used to do this. Robb – This is a problem if the
user comes aboard with an old operating system.
· Jules – let the
users know well in advance that their systems must be up-to-date and scanned.
R2R Plenary: Recap of Wednesday
afternoon breakout discussions – Bob Arko introduced the R2R group. Summaries of the Breakout sessions were
provided.
Event Logger System Breakout summary - Cyndy Chandler
summarized the session. Her
summary slides are included in Appendix XIX and discussion
followed:
Discussion:
· Jon Meyer – There
is rumor that mySQL is going away.
R2R might want to migrate away this. Cyndy – Yes, R2R can migrate away from it.
Shawn Smith provided an
overview of his session. They discussed real-time data transfer from ship to
shore. R2R came into the session
with an idea to use a common format to transfer data bundled and transmitted to
shore over HiSeasNet. The
discussion went in a totally different direction. Basically SAMOS wanted to get all of the 1Hz data to shore
and get it processed and sent out to centers. Instead, it was suggested that the Met data get processed on
the ships and compressed, then put in box for transfer to shore. The model of UHDAS was suggested. The ships would be equipped with a
hardware/software package. So it is
back to the drawing board.
R2R Cruise Data Directory Structure - Bob Arko provided the
presentation. His slides are
included as Appendix XX. R2R
is developing a "fleet-standard" directory structure as guidance for
configuring acquisition systems and producing end-of-cruise distributions.
The goal is to develop a
fleet-standard cruise directory structure to:
· Differentiate
routine underway, national facility, and science party data sets
· Differentiate
data files from documentation
· Identify the
instrument system that produces each data set
The constraints are:
· Cruise ID is
unique (within R2R system)
· Standard
vocabulary of instrument type, make, and model
· Preserve “all”
of the “original” data
· Preserve
version of data that the science party took home
There are issues (compression,
checksums, File system type) that are usually irrelevant.
Bob said that in a year
from now to have a strawmen to present.
Discussion:
· Jim Holik – Is
there something that R2R prefers. Bob
Arko – A strawman will be out soon.
The first year has been very useful.
· Marc Willis –
congratulated Arko for his outreach and encourages Shawn and Bob to engage the
front line technicians.
· Jim Holik – He
would like the techs to tell PIs about the letter endorsing R2R.
· Dave Forcucci – The
letter should extend beyond UNOLS Fleet and include icebreakers.
· Jim – The letter
should be posted and presented at the pre-cruise planning meeting.
· Jim Holik – Does
anything in R2R contradict the OCE data policy? Bob – Vicki and Cyndy looked at this and felt that R2R
did not conflict.
· Dave – Would you
accept small coastal vessel data? Bob
Arko – The policy is vessels over 50 feet and thus is NSF supported.
· Jim Holik – there
are two goals. One for all UNOLS ships
to participate, and two a standard, preferred definitions.
· Jon Meyer – These
are good goals, but it will take time and iterations.
Break
Winch and Wire Discussion:
Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS) Compliance – Rich Findley referred
to the material that he presented last year. Nothing has changed and eventually compliance with RVSS
Appendix A will be required.
Winch Monitoring Equipment Relevant to RVSS Appendix A – Tom Rezanka, Measurement Technology NW provided a report on
“Winch Monitoring for Increased Safety and Compliance with Appendix A”.
His slides are included as Appendix
XXI.
Tom’s slides covered:
· UNOLS Appendix A –
operations at a Safety Factor of 2.0 or less
· Winch Monitoring Overview
· Tension Measurement
· Tension Sensors
· Wrap Angle
· Corrections for Wrap
Angle Errors
· Application
· Speed/Payout Sensors
· Displays - Current
·
The new display will be a direct
replacement for existing LCI-90.
· Complementary Devices:
· Software – WincDAC
– this is underdevelopment and input is welcome.
For Appendix compliance,
the following applies:
· For Factor of Safety
≤2.5, systems need to be upgraded
· LCI-90R units will be
phased out
· Gumball bracket mount
enclosures can be reused
· Any WinchDAC software
needs to be upgraded
· Serial data can still be
transmitted via existing networks to meet the standard
Discussion:
· Dave Fisicella – How
compatible are your monitors with other systems? Tom – They can collect to most sensors without
problem.
· Daryl Swenson – You
said that you could take multiple inputs.
Tom – A benefit of using the remote displays is that it can be
used as a backup. You can set up a
display with a rope or winch name.
This can be done in the factory.
· Ted – Can you show
the peak load during a cast? Tom
– yes.
· Mike Prince – How
linear is the accuracy. Does the
percent accuracy change a lot. Tom
– The sensor should be linear for the full range.
· Jim Postel – What
is being calibrated every 6 months?
Rich – If you don’t already have a high powered dynamometer you
need one. Tom – You should
be calibrating the monitor.
· Marshall Schwartz –
With Jason you always you use an inline tensiometer. When you are calibrating a sensor you should also calibrate
the zero factor.
· Jim Holik – Proposals
are due December 1st.
New Power Optic Cable (.681”) Design - Rich Findley said that
in everyone’s meeting packet there was a design of a new fiber optic
cable. Annette can send additional
information.
UNOLS Wire Workshop - Rich Findley reported that this topic has been on
our agenda for a long time. It is
not an easy solution. The only way
to have a dramatic solution is to have one conductor. Annette there is
funding for this. Rich we can put
together a steering committee to organize a workshop.
· Marshall Schwartz –
He sees the need for more than one conductor.
MATE Report – Tami Lunsford provided the MATE
report. Her slides are included as
Appendix
XXII.
Tami
is the MATE Program Coordinator.
She is located on the east coast and can be reached at tlunsford@marinetech.org or (302) 731-3035. Tami provided an internship program overview. The program started with a NSF UNOLS
grant in 1999 to fill need for marine technicians. Since 1999, 225 community college and university students
have been placed in research vessels, labs and industry settings (135 were
placed on UNOLS vessels). Tami
presented data on 74% of interns as of 2008:
·
40% are continuing education in
a related field
·
43% are working in marine
science and technology fields
·
63% are in academic science or
technology based careers
·
37% are in industry
Tami
reviewed the UNOLS intern selection process. Preference is given to technical community college students
and marine technology undergraduate students. 82% of interns this year were from community colleges. Interns’ interests, knowledge, and
skills are carefully matched to mentor requirements. The mentor receives the 3-5 resumes that best match their
needs and the mentor makes the final decision on which student(s) they host.
In
2009, 11
interns were placed on UNOLS and USCG vessels (Sharp, Blue Heron, Wecoma,
Thompson, Walton Smith, Seward Johnson, Oceanus and Atlantis, and USCG
Healy). The group included 5
women and 6 men; ages 18-33. 100% of the 2009 mentors said the intern was
beneficial to the organization, made their job easier, and they would hire
another MATE intern in the future.
100% were impressed or very impressed with their intern’s knowledge and
skills (up from 91% last year and 80% the year before). The weakest areas appear to be
scientific and technical knowledge and computer skills (half of the responses
on these were adequate instead of excellent or above expectations). 80% said would hire the intern
immediately in an entry-level position
The technicians/mentors
have been great mentors and role models for the students.
Based on the input from
UNOLS in the past, improvements have been made to the MATE Technical Internship
Program (see slides).
Tami
asked that the marine tech groups commit to providing internship opportunities as early as
possible this year so MATE can recruit and place the best students.
Discussion:
· Anthony – Are you
interested in putting interns on transits? Tami – Yes.
They had been hesitant, but with the right mentor, this could work.
· Richard Perry - Are you
getting engineering students? Tami
– The focus is on community college students in their first two years;
however, if this is what you are interested in this, they can try to help.
· Marc Willis – Do
you want just summer opportunities, or can interns participate year round? Tami – They prefer summer so the
students don’t miss class, but sometimes other times will work.
Lunch
Marine Technician Retention and Recruitment Initiative – Jim Holik
provided a report on the initiative.
His slides are included as Appendix XXIII.
A
workshop was held in Austin, TX in February 2009. The key topics discussed included:
· Aging Workforce
· Increasingly complex work
environment
· Finding well suited
personnel that have potential and desire to work at sea
· Adding flexibility to our
SOP regarding providing high quality tech support at sea
· Increasing technical
support footprint at sea
With feedback from NSF
and the community, UNOLS proposed and was funded to add one full time staff
member to the UNOLS Office to conduct and manage a two-year pilot program.
Investment into Marine
Technical Services has lagged behind all other aspects of ship operations. That will continue to be the case until
a well researched and defined program of improvement across the fleet can be
proposed.
The plan is not to change the way we do business
but to “augment” existing
support structures. The pilot
program will evaluate all institution’s Technical Operations in order to better
understand shipboard and shore side duties and operation. The pilot program will work to create a
better system for exchange/sharing of full-time technicians. It will establish a database of
contract technicians not currently working within the fleet that could sail of
cruises as needed (tech Pool) and a mechanism to hire them. Ship schedules will be evaluated for
potential problems with staffing and recognize opportunities to increase the
level of technical support when possible.
The program will develop and implement a training program for
technicians with a focus on increasing versatility and skill level.
Jim reviewed more of the plan:
•
Create standard job titles and job descriptions throughout
the Fleet (?)
•
Work with UNOLS office and Institutions to get an accurate
representation on-line for the Fleet’s shared-use equipment.
•
Work with the NSF Program Manager to revise the Technical
Support Proposal Guidelines.
•
Visit the UNOLS Institutions to discuss the implementation
of the Technician Pool concept with the Operators and establish working
relationships with the Technical Managers of the fleet.
•
Establish mechanism for better documentation throughout
the fleet
•
Develop a template for a Cruise Support Plan, which in
essence will be a contract between the Institution and the PI as to what the
at-sea support will be in terms of equipment and instrumentation provided,
technical support and schedule.
•
Increase the visibility and information about jobs on
Academic Research Vessels and explore establishment of an internship program.
•
Provide the fleet a resource that was heretofore
unavailable
Requirements
for the pilot program manager position are:
· Extensive background in
the oceanographic research field with combined experience as an at-sea
technician, marine operations/Technical Support manager, and possess a strong
science background.
· Good understanding of
technical issues.
· Understanding of
personnel and human resource policies and procedures.
· A strong background in
Project Management
· Understanding of research
vessel schedules and cruise planning.
· Ability to maintain
accurate and up-to-date records and information using databases and information
systems.
The candidate for the position is Alice Doyle.
The timeline for the
project was reviewed:
Jan – March 2010
•
Begin to
understand structure of Academic Fleet Technical Support Programs.
•
Participate
in evaluation of Tech Support Proposals.
•
Prepare
documentation regarding how various Institutions do business. Begin contact
with Tech Managers.
•
Begin
assembly of database for Tech Pool.
•
Receive
training at LDEO for R2R
March – June, 2010:
· Begin visits to
Institutions to discuss and/or provide the following:
· Schedules and technical
support needs
· R2R training and
implementation
· Establishment of the
fleet wide shared-use inventory
· Current and proposed
training programs for techs
· Documentation needs. Do
we need a Tech Writer for the fleet?
Is there any value of having a writer create a how-to documents
June 2010
•
Meeting in DC
with NSF, RVTEC Chair, and UNOLS Exec Secretary to evaluate the pilot program
to date and define second 6 months action plan
Jim introduced Alice.
Alice explained that the
program is to augment and improve your programs. The ideas came from the
workshop. It is a very ambitious
6-month plan. She encouraged
feedback. The improvements cannot happen overnight. She sees the job as a challenge.
Discussion:
· Dave Fisichella –
On the chart, the tech numbers don’t look like they are going up by 30%. He had suggested that it seems
reasonable and there is justification to go to the science program managers and
say that the techs are doing more of the science support. They should get a higher proportion of
the budget.
· Richard Perry –
there was a lot of grumbling last year, it seems like this pilot program will
address these issues.
· Jim Holik –
Increased money and accessibility to ships is an issue.
· Stewart Lamerdin –
One of the objectives of the workshop was to address recruitment and
retention. Jim Holik – If
you provide a better work environment with training, it could help.
· Stewart Lamerdin –
We heard that there were issues about hanging onto the good people. The pilot program is addressing some
issues with the tech managers, but not keeping people in the program. Jim Holik – He feels that there
are people who would not like to work with the institutions, but instead want
more flexibility. He thinks it is
a way to look at the future. If
pay is the issue, he needs to know this.
· Marc Willis – The
slides presented an ambitious program.
In 25 words or less, what is the problem that this pilot program will
solve? Jim Holik – The problem
is dissatisfaction, retention, morale is low, no career path. Marc Willis – So how is this the
solution of the problem? Jim Holik
– This is the best solution that they came up with as a group. Marc Willis – Trying to mix
Alice’s job with R2R is a big mistake.
Injecting another person into R2R is a bad idea. Trying to standardize the tech manager
position descriptions would not happen – too many institutional
issues. Putting another person in
the cruise planning project is a problem.
· Aubri- Do you have any
idea how many people will be in the tech pool? Jim – No idea.
It could be 5 or it could be many more.
· Dale Chayes – The
tech pool infers that there will be a tech list with contact info. It is a crock. Jim Holik – That is not is what
is meant. These will be good
people. Dale – A list is not
what is needed. You need to be
able to contact people who can come to work the next day.
· Dale Chayes –
Training is not the solution to many of our issues and underlying problems. There is a difference between training
and education. Training is for
routine jobs. We need educated
people. We are rapidly dumbing down the workforce and providing more support from
shore. Jim Holik – He can’t
disagree, but what it the problem.
· Dave Fisichella – A
pool of techs that they can go to for relief work is needed. If he can sit down with someone who has
already vetted the list – he sees the benefit. It would also be nice to be able to offer time off to his
techs.
· Scott Hiller –
Don’t we already have a tech pool.
Jim – Yes, but he would like to have a more formal program.
· Mike Prince – The
problem was stated in the workshop.
Mike’s understanding is that there is an ad hoc arrangement for sharing
techs. From the workshop, it was
the plan to have a better, more formal, vetted pool.
· Marshall Schwartz –
He has had a lot of experience working with WHOI SSG and other groups. Often his networking
is exhausted, this will help.
· Marshall – What
happens when your institution is found to be deficient in pay, benefits, etc. Jim
– The program will look at this.
It is not meant to single out people.
· Tim McGovern– He
has a person who is leaving UH, but who he would like to keep the person in the
system. The tech pool will help.
· Alex Dorsk – It is
good for people to get on other ships to learn and share expertise.
· Dale Chayes – Why
don’t we make job openings better known?
The Pilot Program manager position was never advertised on the RVTEC
list so few in our community were aware of the opportunity to apply.
· Jim Holik - He would like
to increase the tech footprint at sea.
· Scott Hiller - How will
we deal with Unions? He is a union
employee.
· Jim Holik asked for
patience, cooperation, and open mindedness. It is a sensitive issue.
· Alice – Ask
questions and provide input.
· Dale Chayes – A list
of ideas and a timeline is a good start.
Year in Review – Each marine technician group was asked to
provide a brief presentation that covers the following three topics.
· Annual Operations Recap
· Highlight(s) of the year
· Most challenging issue or
biggest technical hurdle
Annette introduced the
topic and said that this is a new addition to the meeting. We hope to learn
more about the annual operations and to also hear from some of the junior
technicians.
The presentations from
each of the UNOLS vessels and the USCG icebreakers are included in Appendix
XXIV.
University of Washington Ship and Facilities Tours –
Meeting
participants were welcome to tour the UW facilities including R/V Thompson.
Friday, November 20th – Center for Urban Horticulture, NHS Hall
Call Day 3 of the RVTEC meeting to order
UNOLS Reports:
Scientific Committee for Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Research (SCOAR) Report – Dan Schwartz provided the SCOAR report. His slides are included as Appendix XXV. Dan showed a video clip of a launch and recovery of an UAV
from a research vessel.
Discussion:
· Marshall – How many
have been deployed? Dan – Don’t
know. SCOAR is having a town hall
meeting at Ocean Sciences. We will
have some of the vehicles at Ocean Sciences.
Fleet
Improvement Committee (FIC) – Marc Willis provided the FIC report and said that
the Fleet Improvement Plan has been completed. Marc’s slides are included in Appendix XXVI.
Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) – Steve Hartz
provided an update on the AICC activities. The Committee will meet in Seattle in December. They continue debriefs of the Healy users.
RVOC and Safety Committee – Rich Findley reported that the RVSS Appendix A has been approved. By October 2010, UNOLS should be in
compliance with Appendix A.
UNOLS Report - Annette DeSilva provided the UNOLS report. Her slides are included as Appendix
XXVII. She reported on the
publications from 2009 and the goals for the upcoming year. In 2010, the UNOLS Charter will come
under review. The RVTEC By Laws
are contained in Annex V of the Charter http://www.unols.org/info/ucharter.html#annexV. Annette encouraged everyone to look at
the Annex V and if there is anything that you would like to change, let us
know.
Ship Updates
Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) –Steve Hartz and Marc Willis provided an update on the ARRV. Their slides are contained in Appendix
XXVIII. Marc recommended
two books as excellent references (see slides). The ship name should be chosen soon. The ARRV will have an Ice Class of
Polar Class 5, first year ice.
Ocean Class Research Vessel (OCRV) Status – Mike Prince
provided a report on the OCRV status.
His slides are included as Appendix XXIX.
The Phase I/II
solicitation was released 24 April 09 and proposals were received on 24
June. Phase I is the Preliminary
Contract Design. Contract awards
are expected in December 2009. The
first design reviews are expected in March 2010. The ship deliveries: are expected as:
· 1st ship
– FY 2014, Q2
· 2nd ship
– FY 2014, Q4
The status report and slides
include the:
·
History of the OCRV
Specification Development
·
Specifications and
Solicitations
· Ship Acquisition:
· Operator Selection:
Mike Prince has been hired as
the ONR Research Facilities Assistant (IPA). He will represent ONR and the UNOLS community during the Ocean
Class AGOR design and construction process. He will coordinate with Operator representatives during
design reviews and construction.
Additionally, the Navy will work with UNOLS on the establishment of an advisory
committee to serve as a resource for ONR, NAVSEA, the selected operators and
the UNOLS Community. The formation of the advisory
committee will take place after the NAVSEA design awards and selection of
operator institutions (2nd Qtr).
The OCRV key
parameters were reviewed:
· Length Overall - Around
200 to 220 ft
· Displacement - 1,800 to
2,500
· Draft – no greater
than 17 ft
· Speed – 11 knots in
calm seas at 80% MCR
· Propulsion –
Integrated Diesel Electric (1/2 rpm to max) – might be z drives
· Range – 10,000 NM
· Endurance – 40 days
· Science Berths (minimum
required) = 10 two-person S.R. – this includes technicians and One
“accessible” S.R.
· Crew Berthing (minimum
required) = 8 single berths and 6 double berth S.R.
· Labs ~ 1,900 sq ft
· Main Deck ~ Minimum 2,100
sq ft, (1,600 aft of house, Stb side 80 ft x 10 ft, space for two vans)
Costs, budget and time will affect scope of initial
outfitting. Most science equipment
will be government furnished and specified and purchased later in the project,
just in time for delivery or post delivery. Operators will have input to NAVSEA on this process. Winches, Cranes and Over-the-side
equipment are planned as part of the shipyard contract.
INMARTECH 2010 – INMARTECH 2010 will be in NIWA, Wellington,
New Zealand in January 2011. Jim
Holik encouraged attendance and participation.
Determine Host Institution for 2010 RVTEC Meeting – This can be done by
email after the meeting.
RVTEC Vice-Chair Nominations – The nominees
were introduced and a paper vote was taken.
Multibeam Focus Group Summary - Dale Chayes provided
an update on the Multibeam Focus Group discussion that was held on Monday. His slides are contained as Appendix
XXX. It was a productive
discussion. The possible actions
are to:
· Identify an advisory
group
· Prepare a proposal
· Improved communications
with vendor - It was clear that better communications with Kongsberg are needed.
· Negotiate a fixed
price/year maintenance agreement that covers all ships.
· Evaluate “depot” spares
arrangement - Can we do something to provide on-board spares
· Establish and maintain a
patch test site/clearing house
· Develop and maintain
accurate configuration documentation information per ship
· Document best practices
(installation, operation, maintenance)
· Facilitate raising the
knowledge level of our at-sea technical personnel
Discussion:
· Jim Holik – He
thought that we run the multibeam all of the time. We have to improve on this.
· Dale – His
understanding was that Sandy’s intent was for the operators to propose to run
underway stuff everyday and put it in the budget. If that is what we are budgeting we need to do it. If we aren’t budgeting for it we
should.
· Jim – He would like
to see the underway systems running all of the time. The data is too valuable. If you need additional support, let him know.
· Dale is looking for ideas
· Tim McGovern – He
expressed concern over the level of support that is required. There is pressure to take this on, yet
there is also the need to keep day rates down. It is a disconnect.
· Dale – there is
also a problem of the raw versus processed data. There were cruise plans that deleted the need for Multibeam
when they found out that “processed on board” cost more.
· Tim – He is
concerned with having his techs have to troubleshoot boards when they have to
do every thing else.
· Dale – It is a
problem. If you have a mooring
cruise you might not have the electronics tech aboard.
· Dale – He is
worried about 24 ops and just 2 techs aboard. It can’t be done safely and effectively with only one which has been the past practice for many ships.
· Steve Hartz – It
isn’t just multibeam. ADCP, etc. Sometimes Multibeam must be shut down
so that other things will work.
· Jim – Dale is going
to be responsible for writing a proposal for negotiation of Kongsberg, spares,
and best practices. Dale will try
to do that – yes. He will
come up with the advisory group.
Break
Show & Tell Presentations
Wikis in Action - Alex
Dorsk provided a show and tell on Wikis.
His slides are included as Appendix XXXI.
Wikis are very flexible.
The SSSG Wiki is used on the ship.
The can post cruise archives.
As you find a better way to do things it is easy to edit. It can be used as a publishing tool to
post guides. It is searchable.
SIO Portable Seismic System – Brandi Murphy provided
a show and tell on the SIO portable seismic system. Her slides are contained in Appendix XXXII.
The
system is highly portable and has been used on:
· CICESE Francisco de Ulloa
· NERC RRS James Cook
· OSU R/V Wecoma
· URI_GSO R/V Endeavor
· SIO RV Roger Revelle
· SIO RV Melville
The
new system uses food grade silicone oil, which makes it safer to transport, and leaks
less damaging. Details of the
system include:
· 48 Channel Geometrics
GeoEel silicone filled
· 3 GI Gun Inventory (use
two, one spare)
· 5 Digicourse 5010, 5011
Birds (Loan LDEO)
· 1 272 Bird Modem (Loan
LDEO)
· Real Time Systems Sureshot
Gun Controller
The
dry end equipment includes controlling PCs: two Windows XP,
two linux and one Free-Dos. There
are deck units for timing, plotting, streamer control, and depth control. All PCs are networked and there are no
tapes.
SIO Support for Shipboard Use of Radioisotopes - Gary Lain provided the
Show and Tell. His slides are
included as Appendix XXXIII and cover the topics:
· What is Radioactivity?
· Contamination
· SWAB Surveys
· Radioisotopes used on SIO
Ships
· Wipe Surveys
Discussion:
· Stewart Lamerdin – Should
nothing be disposed of over the side?
Gary – Nothing that is over background.
· Dave Fisichella – Most
of what we are concerned with is the scientific integrity. They have nothing at WHOI to do a swipe
test other then sending it to Miami.
How do you deal with post-cruise contamination found to exist while
waiting for SWAB test results?
Gary – The waiting period can be a couple of weeks. Not sure how to deal with it.
· Robbie Laird – Are
incubations levels too low? Gary
– Yes.
· Do technicians get the radioactive
handling training? Gary – The
techs are the eyes and ears. Jim
Dorrance – The techs are trained in the same way as the science
party. The techs are responsible
for enforcement of the handling requirements. Meagan – Gary has trained the techs in doing decontamination.
WHOI-developed Ethernet telemetry system for UNOLS CTD
cables -
Marshall Swartz provided the Show and Tell. His slides are included as Appendix XXXIV and
covered the following topics:
· Symmetric Digital
Subscriber Line (DSL) Technology
· Evaluations on WHOI 7.4
km Test Sea Cable
· The first application considered
o Up link and control LADCP
in real time
o Video feed from WHOI DSPL
cameras
· SDSL Prototype concept - external
battery powered
· SDSL Prototype Minimum
Requirements
· SDSL Data – link
prototype
· Test Results on Atlantis
Cruise
· They found that the RDI
equipment was inadequate.
· Future plans
· Implementation Issues
· Sea Cable Qualifications
Discussion:
· Dave Forcucci – What
is the cost? Marshall - $12K or
less for the entire package.
· Richard – How small
can you get the system? Marshall
– The minimum Inside Diameter (ID) is going to be about 5”.
Vice-Chair Election Results – Daryl Swenson was
elected.
Closing Remarks:
Rich
Findley thanked UW for host. It
has been a great venue.
We will decide on the
location of the next RVTEC meeting location after the meeting. The previous meeting locations are
listed in Appendix XXXV.
Adjourn RVTEC 2009 Meeting – A motion was made and
passed to adjourn the meeting (Willis/Steele).