Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences
~ Focus Groups met on Monday, November, 15th ~
~ An UHDAS + ADCP Workshop was held on Friday, November, 19th ~
Meeting Minutes
A pdf version of these minutes are available at <201011rvtmi.pdf>
Executive
Summary: Bermuda Institute
of Ocean Sciences hosted the 2010 RVTEC Meeting on 16-18 November. Rich
Findley, RVTEC Chair, presided over the meeting. The meeting agenda was
full. A few of the major discussion topics included the:
á
Satellite Communications
á
Data Collection Systems and Initiatives
á
The Marine Technician Retention and Recruitment
Pilot Program
á
RVTEC Officer Appointments and Strategy for
transitioning from the RVTEC Vice Chair position to the Chair-Elect position.
á BGM-3 Gravimeters in the UNOLS Fleet
á JMS Inspection Report
A full day
session was held to discuss winch and
wires. Rich Findley led an informative workshop on
the Research Vessel Safety Standards Appendix A, UNOLS Rope and Cable Safe
Working Load Standards.
The ÒYear in
ReviewÓ session that was introduced at last yearÕs RVTEC meeting was continued
in 2010. 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. The R/V Atlantic
Explorer was available for tours. An informative Show and Tell session was
provided at the end of the meeting.
Elections
were held for a new RVTEC Chair. David Fisichella from Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution was elected.
Meeting Presentations:
Monday,
November 15th
- Pre-meeting Focus Group Sessions:
|
Satellite Communications -
HiSeasNet Presentation for Focus Group Session (~1.3 MB) -
Steve Foley |
|
Gulf of Mexico - Oil Spill
Response Effort - Aubri Steele |
|
Update on the State of
Multibeam Systems (~5.5 MB) – Dale Chayes |
|
Rolling Deck to Repository (R2R) Initiative – R2R Group: |
|
- R2R Directory Structure (Bob Arko) |
|
- SAMOS Real-Time Data (2.3 MB) (Shawn
Smith) |
|
- R2R Event Long (3.9 MB) (Andy
Maffei) |
|
BGM-3 Gravimeters -
Gravimeter Best Practices - James Kinsey and Dan Fornari |
Tuesday,
November 16th - RVTEC 2010: Day 1
|
I |
|
|
II |
|
|
III |
|
|
IV |
|
|
V |
|
|
VI |
|
|
VII |
|
|
VIII |
|
|
IX |
|
|
X |
|
|
XI |
R2R Initiative Update (~4.8 MB) |
|
XII |
|
|
XIII |
|
|
XIV |
|
|
XV |
|
|
XVI |
|
|
XVII |
CTD Data Processing, Limitations of Seabird Software |
|
XVIII |
UNOLS Technical Services -
Best Practices and Pre-Cruise Planning |
Wednesday,
November 17th - RVTEC 2010: Day 2
|
XIX |
|
|
XX |
JMS Inspection Report (~4.6 MB) |
|
XXIa |
Winch and Wire Session -
Appendix A - UNOLS Rope and Cable Safe Working Load Standards (~8MB) |
|
XXIb |
Thursday,
November 18th - RVTEC 2010: Day 3
|
XXII |
|
|
XXIII |
|
|
XXIV |
|
|
XXV |
|
|
XXVI |
|
|
XXVII |
|
|
XXVIII |
|
|
XXIX |
|
|
XXX |
|
|
XXXI |
|
|
XXXII |
|
|
XXXIII |
|
|
XXXIV |
|
|
XXXV |
|
|
XXXVI |
|
|
XXXVII |
Monday, November 15th - Pre-meeting Focus Group Sessions were held.
Satellite Communications
– Steve Foley lead the
focus session and provided a presentation on HiSeasNet. His slides are available at: http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/HiSeasNet_FocusGroup2010.pdf
Discussion:
á Dan Fornari
– As a science ship user, there is a lot of variability of the networks
from ship to ship. It is a big
frustration. He likes the
HiSeasNet – very useful. It
seems like it would be good to get fleet guidelines on HiSeasNet bandwidth
availability.
á Woody Sutherland
– The availability really depends on how many ships are using the system
and the types of operation.
á Steve Foley
– there are some operations that are very demanding on the bandwidth
á Dan Fornari
– There should be prioritization of uses. There are some uses that absolutely require the bandwidth-
captain, etc. Then the science can
manage their use accordingly.
á Bill Byam
– It can be a hard thing to sort out.
á Richard Perry
– Institutions should do this as part of their cruise planning. It should be treated like any other
ship resource.
á Andy Maffei
– there are two ways to do this.
You can run the cruise in restrictive mode (limited to science) and
non-restrictive/full mode.
á Steve Foley
– Going between modes is not automated. When you hit the limit, you hit the limit. There is only a limited amount of
bandwidth for the couple hundred people.
á Woody
Sutherland - When we talk about resources, we will need another person to keep
this running. We cannot expect the
electronics technician to also take care of Internet traffic.
á Jim Holik
– How much funding would help this problem? This is one of the most often cited problems in the post
cruise assessments.
á Dan Fornari
– There should be an across the board UNOLS policy.
á Steve Foley
– There needs to be a culture change and more education. He thinks that it would help if there
were some sort of meter to show how many ships are on-line and the bandwidth in
use.
á Jules Hummon – She thinks that the chief scientist should
be responsible for their students.
Also, it is frustrating when another ship is streaming the football
game.
á Jon Meyer
– The http traffic is the biggest consumer. One way to regulate the structure is by implementing
concurrent http connections limitations.
This can be done by proxy. All of the pieces are there to do this
now. This is done on the SIO
ships.
á Richard Perry
– Can more bandwidth be bought as needed per demand? Steve Foley – They try to do
this.
á Bill Fanning
– Is there a way for the techs to identify the IP address that is the
high user? Steve Foley –It
is available, but you have to dig for it.
The problem is it is another task to for the Technician. There are some systems that are free
and some that can be bought. You
can contact Steve for more information.
á Richard Perry
– There is a new version of Safari that has a reader mode that drops all
of the images.
á Jon Meyer
– Educate people on how to be a good neighbor and on use.
á Dan – He
proposes that there be a rational assessment of the situation and then a
proposal with a reasonable approach.
It would go a long way to fixing this.
á Woody –
There are times when there are antennae issues. Sometimes a ship only can see the satellite for very limited
connect. This is a whole different
issue.
á Woody –
Their satellite equipment is starting to have failures and break. Many of the antennas are old and need
replacement.
á Jim Holik
– What does it cost to replace antennae? Rich Findley - ~$175 - $200k.
á Jim Holik
– There is a lot of good discussion during this session. He proposes that
we form a group to address these issues.
It is an important issue and we need to determine which direction we
want to go as a fleet.
Gulf of Mexico - Oil Spill
Response Effort –
Aubri Steele (U. Maimi) provided a summary of the
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill response effort.
Her presentation is available at:
/www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/GulfOilSpillResponse.pdf
Discussion:
á
Aubri
Steele – BP provided a lot of funds for oil spill response efforts
á Rich Finley - Some of the funds are going to private
vessels some to NOAA.
á Steve Hartz
– In the Valdez oil spill there
wasnÕt much money for response efforts for UNOLS. A pool of technicians,
sensors at the ready would be a good idea. What can we do about having equipment ready for event
responses? Should there be an
equipment pool?
á David Fisichella
– Perhaps there should be a UNOLS proposal to BP for environmental
monitoring. There is not enough in-house support to potentially respond to this
kind of need.
á Shawn Smith
– FSU is funding a new vessel (~65-feet). They would like to partner with UNOLS for equipment and
future readiness. There is a lot
of oil out there and there is a lot of research to be done.
á Phil
McGillivary – All of the gear from the Polar Sea went to NOAA for Gulf response efforts. The performance of sensors in oil
wasnÕt properly addressed initially.
Break
Update on the State of
Multibeam Systems –
Dale Chayes lead a focus session on multibeam
Systems. His presentation is
available at: http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/chayes2010-11-17rvtec-mb-focusgroup.pdf
The systems are big and complicated. Dale reviewed the systems that are currently in the
fleet. The concept of a
centralized UNOLS multibeam support pool (much like
Jules Hummon and ADCP) was discussed. Dale highlighted some of the multibeam issues that need to be addressed:
-
Best
practices
-
Spare
parts
-
Noise
-
Education
-
Installation
Dale reviewed the Healy
multibeam installation and provided images (see
slides).
Discussion:
á
It
is important to monitor noise signals over time.
á Hull noise transducer should be a placeholder in any multibeam installation. This should be a standard item.
á If we had more data on what hull noise exists, we will
know more on how to avoid noise in new vessel construction.
á There is also EMI issues for cable runs
á
Dale
demonstrated a similie timeline showing Healy mulitbeam events: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~dale/projects/multibeam-support/healy_timeline_local/local_example.html.
The simile widget tool set http://www.simile-widgets.org/timeline/ . The tool
allows you to make
interactive timelines.
á Jim Postal commented on the Thompson multibeam upgrade. There are
bubble plumes with water column tracking.
á Other issues associated with multibeam
systems in the fleet are spare parts and backup problems
á Technical knowledge and expertise of the multibeam systems is limited.
á Tim Gates
– Bubbles create a lot of noise.
Ships donÕt get quieter over time.
They have to be monitored.
You need to have a quiet ship at the frequency that you operate the multibeam system at.
á There was a lot
of discussion about the need for a pool and maintenance agreements.
á Dan Fornari
– Where do we go from here?
Dale - Larry Mayer and Dale have been trying to reach an agreement on
how to establish a multibeam support system and what
areas to focus on.
á Ship noise is
an issue across the fleet. If you
collect the data and you should use the data.
á Dan Fornari
– If multibeam vendors were approached by UNOLS
as a group, it would be helpful.
Force in numbers.
á Jim Holik
– A small meeting of multibeam users/operators
was held and the consensus of the meeting was to set up a committee. There was funding attached. NSF and Navy will entertain proposals
for this.
Lunch
Afternoon Session:
Rolling Deck to Repository
(R2R) Initiative – Three presentations on R2R were made:
á R2R Directory Structure - Bob Arko presented
and his slides are included as:
http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/R2R_BreakoutDirectory.pdf
á SAMOS/Rea-time Data - Shawn Smith presented
and his slides are included as http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/SAMOS_breakout.pdf
á
R2R
Event Log - Andy Maffei and Laura Stolp presented. Their slides are included as http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/evLog_Update_AMaffei_101115.pdf.
The elog is available at: http://elog.rvdata.us:8086/RVTEC
BGM-3 Gravimeters – James Kinsey provided a presentation
on Gravimeter Best Practices. His
slides are available at: http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Gravimeter_Kinsey.pdf .
End Focus Group Sessions
RVTEC Meeting: Day 1 - Tuesday,
November 16th
Meeting Called to Order - Rich Findley, RVTEC Chair, called the 2010
RVTEC Annual Meeting to order and provided introductory remarks. There are 81 participants at the
meeting and individuals introduced themselves. The meeting agenda is included as Appendix I (http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/201011rvtag.html).
Gerry Plumley, Deputy Director of BIOS
provided welcoming remarks. He
provided a brief history of BIOS and their research vessels. His slides are included as Appendix
III (http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap03.pdf)
Accept Minutes of the 2009 RVTEC Meeting – The minutes will be reviewed and
accepted later in the meeting.
RVTEC
Participant Introduction – Participants introduced themselves. The attendance list is included as Appendix
II (http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/201011rvtap02.html) .
Agency Reports:
National Science Foundation
(NSF) – Jim Holik
provided the report for NSF. His
slides are included as Appendix IV (http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap04.pdf).
Jim discussed the FY 2011 Budget.
á The NSF Appropriation for FY 2011 has not
been passed. NSF is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution, which
runs through December 2, 2010.
They are not sure what the outcome will be.
á In NSFÕs request for 2011, theyÕve asked for
an increase in OCE of 8.3%
á Pressures from the deficit will likely make
for a very austere 2012. Jim cited
the The New York Times, November 3,
2010 article that takes a look at what the budget levels would be if the
agencies were cut to the 2008 amounts. NSF would lose more than $1 billion, or almost 19 percent, of its budget.
á OCE Highlights for the Integrative Programs
Section include the construction of the R/V Sikuliaq
and the Upgraded Alvin.
á David Conover is the new head of Ocean Science
Section (Oct, 2010)
á The primary issues impacting OCE/NSF are:
o Infrastructure vs. Science funding – In
FY2010, infrastructure is 44% of science.
It is going up, but they recognize that it is needed.
o Fleet renewal (there will be 6 fewer ships in
twenty years).
o Cross-cutting programs
o Response to OPM Survey
á Regional Class Research Vessels (RCRV)
– NSF is investigating funding options with the initial hull construction
starting in FY15. There could be
three hulls total. They plan to
move forward with an ÒARRV-likeÓ process (the solicitation drafted). The
optimal schedule would release the solicitation in early 2011 and begin
construction in Mid-2016 with science operations in Mid-2018.
á The 2011 Fleet utilization was
presented. Use is very low. There are about 1500 days less in 2011
than 2010.
Discussion:
á
Dale Chayes – Inquired about the bulbous bow
in the RCRV sketch. Marc Willis
– He will explain this later.
á
Dave Fisichella – With the cuts in the budget,
what is the priority of the RCRV construction? Jim – he is not sure.
á
There was a lot of discussion on the decline in ship
time.
á
Dan Fornari felt that the agencies need to put more money to basic science.
á
Annette DeSilva mentioned the UNOLS is conducting a
survey on the ship time demand decline.
They will try to identify the causes. There is an aging sea-going community and many are
discouraged over proposal award rates.
One way UNOLS is trying to encourage ship use is be engaging early
career scientist. A workshop is
planned for new investigators on how to be a Chief Scientist.
á
Dave Fisichella – PIs are getting more
creative on combining work on ships.
However, these multidisciplinary cruises are more demanding for tech
support.
Next Jim discussed 2011 Proposals and deadlines:
Oceanographic
Technical Services: Dec 1st
Oceanographic
Instrumentation: Dec
15th
Shipboard
Scientific Support Equipment: Dec
15th
Remember:
1.Data
Management Plan (Required after Jan 18. Fast lane will reject without)
2.References
3.Facilities
Jim said that he feels that tech support needs to increase. He doesnÕt hesitate to ask for an extra
tech bunk on cruises.
Office of Naval Research (ONR) – Tim Schnoor provided the report for
ONR.
á
The Navy has six ships in the UNOLS fleet and
provides about 16-17% of the funding.
á
Revelle consumed most of TimÕs budget this year.
á
Maintenance and repair of Navy owned ships must
come out of the Navy budget.
á
Tim complemented RVTEC on a great group
and forum
á
The Global ships had over 300 operating
days each in 2010.
á
Knorr had system
failures and is coming back to port. This will be a cost to Navy.
á
2011 ship time will decrease with about
250-280 days on each the Global class vessels
Ocean
Class Ships – WHOI and SIO are thinking of names for their vessels. The ships are in the preliminary design
process and there are two teams competing on the design and construction. The design will be a monohull. Glosten
teamed with Marinette Marine (Wisconsin).
Guida Perle teamed
with Dakota Creek (Washington). In
a couple of months they will complete the preliminary designs. Then there will be one award for
construction in summer 2011. At
the end of 2014, the first ship will go to WHOI and the second ship will go to
SIO in the first part of 2015.
There will be full schedules in 2016. The construction budget for the ships is about $76M
each. Mission Equipment is an
additional budget that they have.
They will also determine what can be cross-decked.
FLIP:
á
48 years
old and Navy owned
á
Just
coming out of dry dock and is an available platform
á
The
platform is under utilized with about 20-60 days/year
á
Operating
areas are Southern California or not far
á
It Needs
to be towed to sample area
á
It is a
good platform for air-sea interaction experiments
Discussion:
á
Tim McGovern – question for Tim and
Jim. Has there been any discussion
about laying up a ship earlier from WHOI and SIO. Tim –yes.
They are looking at Oceanus. They are also looking at what can be
done with the long core system that is on
Knorr in terms of transferring it to another vessel. From NavyÕs perspective, they wonÕt be
responsible for more than 6 ships at any one time.
United States Coast Guard (USCG) – Dave Forcucci provided the USCG report. This slides
are included as Appendix V (http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap05.pdf). DaveÕs slides
cover the following topics and include ship photos while in the shipyard.
á Healy Update –
o The multibeam upgrade installation was a highlight.
o The shipÕs Arctic deployment is about 100 days/year
o Healy Dry Dock included:
¤ Multibeam installation
¤ Shaft electrolysis
¤ New ADCP was installed.
á Polar Sea and Polar Star
o These ships were built in the 1970s
o NSF contracted with Swedish vessel, Oden,
for Antarctic operations in 2010.
o Polar Sea supported one science cruise in Bering Sea
o Polar SeaÕs liners on its pistons need replacing. The January cruise that the ship was
scheduled to support will not happen due to piston work
o Polar Star is in care taker status
o Re-activation money is needed to add 7-10 years of life on
the Polar Star
o
The
funding for the operation of the USCG ice breakers is
currently in the NSF budget, but might be put back into the USCG budget.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) – Mike Webb
provided the NOAA report.
á
NOAA has
the same budget problem as NSF and is also on a continuing resolution.
á
NOAA will
not sail as many ships next year as a result of the budget constraints.
á
They will
not know their budgets until March 2011.
á
They also
have a ship being built at Marinette Marine (same yard as Sikuliaq).
á
NOAA
brought on two new ships on line; the fisheries vessels Shimada and Pisces
á
The Shimada is going through post
availability trials to work out issues.
á
The Jordan was taken off line over a year
ago. NOAA is not sure what they are going to do with it. They will be towing it
down to Newport, OR for storage
á
R/V Cobb was decommissioned a year ago and
was given to a local maritime group.
á NOAA terminated the contract on Hassler with
Halter Marine.
á
Gulf Oil
spill used many NOAA vessels. They
are currently backing off on support in that area.
á
NOAA
Funding/Budgets
o Budgets are going to be tight
o There are rumors of 2008 budget limits
o There are a number of projects that will not happen
o Miller
Freemen will most likely be laid up
o NOAA has a deficient contract with Halter Marine
á
Okeanus Explorer is in Dry dock
á
NOAA is
moving PMEL from Seattle to Newport, OR and they are going through their
storage areas. There is a list of
NOAA supplies that could be made available for community use including a 150 BB
ADCP.
RVTEC Officer Appointments
– Annette DeSilva opened a discussion on:
á
Strategy
for Transitioning from the RVTEC Vice Chair position to the Chair-Elect
position.
á
Officer
Nominations
á
Membership
voting procedures (via internet)
AnnetteÕs slides are included as Appendix VI http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap06.pdf.
Every
three years the UNOLS Charter must be reviewed and re-adopted. As part of the current review, an
effort has been made to make each of the annexes (committee terms of reference)
more consistent. For this reason,
it is suggested that the RVTEC vice-chair position be transitioned to a chair
elect position.
The RVTEC terms of reference, Annex V to the UNOLS Charter,
were revised and circulated to the Tech Manager group for endorsement in the
summer. At that time it was
pointed out that not all UNOLS institutions were represented
by the Technical Managers group.
Annette then made an effort to contact the institutions that were not
represented. As a result of this
effort, it became clear that a procedure for conducting Internet voting would
be needed.
The UNOLS Membership endorsed the revised Annex V in
October. The revision changes the
vice-chair to the chair-elect position but it does not suggest how this transfer
should take place. Election for
the RVTEC Chair and Chair-elect must occur in the same year.
One proposed strategy for transition is:
á At the 2010 RVTEC Meeting, hold elections for the RVTEC
Chair.
á The term length would be 3 years.
á At the 2010 RVTEC Meeting, hold elections for the RVTEC
Chair- Elect.
á The term length would be 3 years.
á At the end of the 3-year term as the Chair-Elect, the
Chair-Elect would become RVTEC Chair for a 3-year term.
Discussion:
á Bill Fanning – Do the officer terms have to be 2 or 3
years?
á Joe Malbrough - The RVOC is on 3-year cycle
á Dale Chayes – all RVTEC UNOLS institutions members
must vote on this topic.
á Annett DeSilva – There has been an effort to make the
Charter consistent, but other options can be considered.
á There was some
concern over the 3-year terms, but it was pointed out that the Vice Chair
hasnÕt been heavily tasked over the years.
á Marc Willis is willing to serve as the Nominating committee
Membership voting procedures
(via internet) were discussed next:
á Dale Chayes – The procedures were flawed this year
á A new RVTEC e-mail list called RVTEC_vote
was proposed and each institution could put a representative on the voting
list.
á Dale Chayes – He did not like the process for voting
on the Annex adoption. There was a lack of coordination. He suggested that issues should be
aired openly before going to vote.
á Annette DeSilva – An item for vote could go to the
entire RVTEC list for discussion.
Then once the discussion is closed, the vote would come from the rvtec_vote list with one rep per institution.
á There could be an on-line discussion for vote items and
perhaps use an RVTEC wiki.
á Annette DeSilva will work on drafting a voting procedure and
circulate it for group discussion.
Break
BGM-3 Gravimeters in the UNOLS
Fleet – James Kinsey
and Dan Fornari provided a presentation on BGM Gravimeters. Their slides are included as Appendix
VII http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap07.pdf.
They reviewed the importance of
gravimeters, past history of the inventory, the existing infrastructure, pooled
equipment and services, the present status, and future work.
In June 2009, the
Potential Fields Pool Equipment facility was formed. An NSF award
(NSF-OCE-0943618) for $239k was awarded in Summer 2009 to provide equipment for
the Potential Fields Pool Equipment (PFPE). The PFPE provides the UNOLS
community with:
á A supply of spares for maintaining the at-sea
BGM-3s
á Technical Support including on-shore support for
the at-sea gravimeters and helping establish best practices.
á Two pool gravimeters for use of ships of
opportunity or as complete emergency spares for the at-sea systems.
The PFPE included a SeaSPY towed marine magnetometer, pool gravimeters, land
gravimeters, and spares.
Dan Fornari encouraged RVTEC members to contact him or James
if they have a land gravimeter (or know someone who does) so it can be
refurbished.
Dan encouraged individuals to provide as much lead-time as
possible for gravimeter requests. The PFPE provides 24/7 on-shore technical support from
Kinsey and Herr and they are helping to establish best practices.
For additional details, refer to the slide
package.
Report from the UNOLS Technical
Support Manager –
Alice Doyle provided an update on the Marine Technician Retention and Recruitment
Pilot Program. Her slides are
included as Appendix VIII http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap08.pdf.
The recommendations from Austin workshop in Feb
2009 were:
á Internship
Programs for Technicians and licensed crew positions
á Training
Scholarship to provide opportunities for advanced technical skills and license
upgrades.
á Crew and
Technician Relief Pool Process that will better utilize existing personnel and
to better identify qualified and available temporary personnel.
á Available
Berths Policy and Procedures to more effectively provide opportunities for
training, experience and research or educational opportunities, including
outreach to potential employees.
á Addition of a
UNOLS Personnel Coordinator that will oversee, coordinate and facilitate these
related issues on a fleet wide basis making them more effective and providing
relief to smaller ship operations staff.
AliceÕs
effort over this past year have included:
á Collecting
Information
á Finding
Technicians for transfers to other institutions in need of technical support.
á UNOLS/MATE 6
month Internship
á Training &
Education
á Technician Pool
á Technician
Augmentation
á Recruitment/Outreach
Alice has had further contact with Tech Managers to learn about their
programs. She has visited WHOI,
LDEO, URI, UDEL, OSU, and SIO and has had conversations with scientists, and with private
companies who supply technicians.
She has
investigated other shipboard
technical support models including those from National Oceanographic Center
– Southampton, UK, WHOI Jason Program, NOAA, IODP, USAP, and SEA.
Alice
worked to establish a UNOLS/
USAP exchange for an easy means of exchanging technicians between the fleets.
Alice
worked with the MATE program to
set up a six-month internship to run from January – June 2011. WHOI and Duke with hose the
interns. The intern opportunity was advertised through all the UNOLS email lists, MATE infrastructure, COL,
web. Emphasis was placed on candidates who already completed or almost
completed studies, had previous sea-time, and candidates interested in a career
as a marine technician. A subcommittee
of RVTEC members helped to develop the Internship Guidelines and is assisting in
narrowing down the applicant pool.
Interns will spend about 80-90 Days at Sea and 80-90 Days ashore. Thirty complete applications were
received and the candidates are well qualified. In the future years additional host institutions
will be needed.
Alice is
investigating MT training/education
needs. Dale explained the difference between training and education. We
train people to do predefined tasks.
We educate people on how to think about things and react to do
them. Much of what we do is
education based as opposed to training.
Alice developed a survey on training within the
fleet to:
á Review the
current training models within the fleet
á Begin to
develop a database of beneficial and not-beneficial courses for the fleet so
current and future technicians can benefit from past technicians' training and
education experiences
á Find out if
there is any opportunity for future group training/education
There were 54 responses to the survey. Most indicated that more training would be useful. Some courses that have been taken over
the years that specifically stood out include: Seabird, HiSeasNet, multibeam (Kongsberg and UNH), Rigging, and Winches &
Wires.
Courses interested in taking included many of the same courses as
listed above as well as: network administration, ADCP, software programming,
and electronics.
Some next steps include:
á Create a list
of good courses and providers as a resource for the fleet.
á Investigate
further community training sessions
á Investigate
different models for funding training
á Investigating
finding ship days (transit or other) to conduct full-scale MT training onboard
a UNOLS R/V
Discussion:
á Dave Forcucci – Technicians are
service provider. Have they been
provided with management courses?
á Rich Findley – Team building and
management training is useful.
á Richard Perry – There was an
RVTEC meeting (St Pete) that brought in a team builder/management session.
á Marc Willis – In the early days
of this group there was a volunteer training person. We have lost that, we now have the workshop focus groups,
but these have become presentations instead of education. This meeting is a great forum for
this. Provide training and
education opportunities at RVTEC.
á Rich Findley – This meeting is
now five days. Marc Willis –
You can run things in parallel.
á Alice Doyle – 95% of people said
that they donÕt do training because they donÕt have time. They could do on-line training.
á Shawn Smith – It is useful to
have a ship available for training purposes.
á Marc Willis – There is also DVD
training.
á Alice – Is it worthwhile to buy
these through UNOLS?
á Ted Colburn – With the ship time
going down, use laid-up ships for training opportunities.
Next
Alice discussed the concept of a Technician
Pool. NSF is investigating
means of hosting the Technician Pool.
The pool would augment the current support on particular
cruises. The tech pool would
consist of sea going only technicians either contract employees or independent
contractors. They are investigating the
skill sets required per ship and the various pay structures within the fleet.
The Technician Pool concept is to have it hosted by a single
institution that would employ all tech pool technicians. The UNOLS office sent out a call for Letters of
Interest earlier this year for host institutions. NSF is developing a Letter of Guidance to potential bidders. NSF plans to fund a pilot program
to implement the concept.
NSF
would like to increase the technical
presence about UNOLS vessels. Technical
managers are encouraged to look through your schedules to determine where you
could use additional technical support.
This extra support would not be included in the tech day rates, it would be supported with carry-forward funding in the
proposal.
Discussion:
á Richard Perry
– What are the criteria for selecting the salaries of the tech pool? Will the bidders see these
salaries? Alice – yes.
á Richard –
he is wondering how the tech pool inst will be selected. Jim Holik – The inst will be
given the salary range from the data collected.
á Dale Chayes
– Whom would the Tech Pool proposals be sent to? Alice – NSF. Jim Holik – There have been 3
inst maybe 4 institutions that are interested.
á Dale Chayes
– He is worried about AliceÕs term of ÒMT.Ó This can be confused with mechanical tech, but it should be
the marine tech.
á Jim Holik
– The onus is on the host inst to define what the tech definitions should
be.
á Richard –
Will there be an education component.
Alice – yes.
á Anthony Johnson
– Will the host inst have a way to ensure that the techs in the pool are
qualified? Alice – The host
inst will need to deal with this.
á Anthony Johnson
– There are several areas of expertise. Are there minimum qualifications that are needed? Alice – These are good questions.
á Tim McGovern
– Resumes donÕt tell you everything. CVs are in different formats. A standard format might help.
á Phil
McGillivary – What is the time frame of establishing the Tech pool (in
light of the decline in ship demand).
Jim Holik – This is a good point. The techs from the UNOLS vessels might populate the Tech
Pool from ships with weak or laid up schedules.
á Phil – Is
the tech pool being set up to help the laid up techs. Alice – We would utilize the laid off Techs
first.
á Tami – Is
the intent that Alice be the point of contact? Alice – yes.
á Tim McGovern
– Are there any insurance issues for an employee that does not work for
the host institution. Alice
– The techs would be employed and insured by the employer institution. This is the sort of thing that we have
been doing. Dale – It also
depends on where the person works.
á Dave Forcucci
– Salaries have been compared between institutions. Have you compared salaries to
industry? Alice – A little
bit, every industry is different.
á Richard Perry
– When we talk about industry, there are different techs for each task. On research vessels, some techs do
everything.
á Annette DeSilva
– What will be the selection process for the host institution? Will it be peer reviewed? Jim – Yes, there will be a panel
of some sort.
Alice
reviewed her Recruitment/Outreach
activities. She developed a UNOLS flier
focused on Vessel Support jobs.
Hopefully this will help the community understand what UNOLS is.
10' Diving van for
use on UNOLS ships –
Matt Durham provided a presentation on the 10-foot diving van. His slides are included as Appendix IX
<http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap09.pdf>. The van is available for UNOLS
use. The dive van is not funded
through the UNOLS vanpool and will be kept at SIO.
Discussion:
á Tim McGovern – Will a tech be
provided with the van? SIO –
not planned for.
á Dave Nelson - If you were already
carrying tanks, would you consider supplying oxygen? Woody – yes.
á Steve Hartz – UAF has put an
oxygen reclaimer station on the Sikuliaq to make oxygen.
á Steve Hartz – What about a
portable decompression chamber?
SIO – They are not providing this.
á Tim McGovern – Some programs have
requirements for the decompression chamber. Steve Hartz – Or they need to be in helicopter range.
á Is there a day rate for this? Matt – Not yet, contact SIO for
details.
á The deck connection is a 2-foot
pattern.
á Have you shipped it yet? Matt – They have not transported
the van outside of the SIO area.
á Chris – They have a Nitrogen
generator van that they have shipped and it has had a lot of damage. Matt – they havenÕt had any
trouble yet, but that is something that they will be aware of.
Lunch
Data Collection Systems and Initiatives:
UHDAS and ADCP update – Julia Hummon
provided the update. Her slides
are included as Appendix X <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap10.pdf>. Jules asked everyone to send her a note
when their Ashtech is re-set.
Discussion:
á Bill Fanning
– Does anyone have problems with ADU5? Reply - Yes
á Jon Meyer
– Can UHDAS evaluate Ashtech? Jules – No,
there will not be anything in UHDAS to detect this.
á Richard Perry
– Can Ashtech send the configuration file. Reply – DonÕt think so.
á Dale Chayes
– The failure mode on the Healy
is it stops putting out altitude data.
á Jon Meyer
– Going from a green indicator to a yellow indicator would be very
useful.
á Dale Chayes
– Adding that to the data monitor isnÕt hard, but adding an application
can be tricky.
Rolling Deck to Repository
(R2R) Initiative Update
– Bob Arko provided the R2R update.
His slides are included as Appendix XI <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap11.pdf>.
Bob ended by reviewing the program objectives, the status, current
activities and 2011 goals. In 2011
R2R plans to revise and extend vessel profiles to include devise components, file
formats, data types, installation date, and vessel reference frame. BobÕs slides include details about the
R2R highlights, activities, and plans.
Discussion:
á Dan Fornari
– What are the plans to pull in the National Deep Submergence Facility
(NDSF) vehicle data? Bob Arko
– It is worthwhile to consider.
á Dave Forcucci
– Is there a standard for generating cruise tracks. Bob – They put forward a minimal
amount of points to get a cruise track.
The maximum resolution is one second.
á Bob Arko
– It has been very rewarding to work with each ship operation.
á Jim Holik
– This has been a remarkable project and there is a lot of good feedback.
OSU Data Acquisition System
Installation Update –
Daryl Swenson, Toby Martin, and David OÕGorman provided the update report. Their presentation is available as Appendix
XII <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap12.pdf>.
Dave OÕGorman began the presentation and covered the Sensor Meta
Entry. Toby Martin discussed Data
Flow Design Concepts. Examples can
be found at the URL that Toby provided by email.
Preprocessing
was discussed and there is a filter for elements of interest. You can inject additional metadata,
such as, cruise, ship, source/sink, etc.
The output is as CSV.
Examples can be found at:
<http://www.shipops.oregonstate.edu/martech/project/s
uds_2.0/presentation/rvtec2010/example/>
On-Shore
distributions of near real-time preprocessed (CSV) files go to R2R, VOS
weather to NOAA, and public visualization graphics (projected). The end-of-cruise data set goes to the
Science Team and to R2R.
They transmit data to
shore by the least expensive means.
Discussion:
á Dave Forcucci
– What do you use for software?
Toby – Perl.
á Dave Forcucci
– How much would this system cost?
Daryl Swenson – They would be willing to share this with anyone.
á Phil
McGillivary – What was the incentive for developing the system? Daryl
– They were running an old system and it was time to go with a new
system. They would be happy to
implement it with anyone who is interested.
á Dave – If
you want to add anything to the system, it is very easy. Daryl - If scientists come aboard with
a new system, they can just plug into one of the boards and the raw data will
be saved and time synced.
á Richard Perry
– They went through a similar process for a SWAP system. How far are they from having a full
parts list and schematics? Toby
– They would probably only need a day or two for Dave to have this
together.
á Jim Holik
– If anyone is interested in the OSU system, let him know.
Break
Accept Minutes – A motion was made and passed to accept the
minutes of the 2009 RVTEC Annual Meeting as edited by Dale Chayes.
(Swenson/Perry)
Communications:
HiSeasNet recap of Focus Group – Steve Foley provided the HiSeasNet
report. His slides are included as
Appendix
XIII <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap13.pdf>.
Discussion:
á Steve reported
that HiSeasNet received their FCC license.
á Rich Findley
– Is a site license per ship needed? Steve – no, but he is working to get a license for all
of the ships.
á Steve -
Training is very useful and he will provide if desired.
á Richard Perry
– How long does it take to get expanded bandwidth for a cruise? Steve - For CB and it takes about a
month. There are costs for the higher bandwidth periods. This will be posted on the wiki
page. Requests for higher
bandwidth should be submitted as early as possible.
Fleet Broadband – Jim Holik provided the Fleet
Broadband (FBB) update. His slides
are included as Appendix XIV http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap14.pdf.
The program was established 1 January 2010 and covers 3 years for 20 users
(ships). The use of Fleet
Broadband reduced the rate reduced from
$11.34/MB to $1.52/MB. The total pool size is
established at just over 40 GB per month.
Any
unused
balance will carry‐forward month to
month for 1 year period. If the user
pool exceeds the allowance, the use rate increases to $2.28/MB. An FTP site, ftp.whoi.edu, was established
to allow users to monitor usage. Member institutions are provided with
individual user and password login information
JimÕs message to RVTEC members is that if you need FBB, use it. Jim will deal with the charges. He doesnÕt want to hear from the
Science party that they were scared to use FBB. They are using about a ½ of what they have.
Mike Gagne continued the presentation. FBB was designed as a backup for HiSeasNet. He thinks it
should be used in tandem when more bandwidth is needed. If you have a later version ÒB,Ó let Mike
know what you have so WHOI can procure spare parts.
Mike encouraged
FBB users to save the URL http://192.168.0.1/index.lua?pageID=Maintenance in their favorites. The site provides maintenance details. You
must have the java update to see the boxes. Shows a bar graph of how the system is operating. Then you can tell if the FBB is
working. Temperature should be
watched. The ÒAÓ systems donÕt
have fans. ÒBÓ units have the fan.
Discussion:
á Dave Nelson
– Are the MB number on the first slide for voice and data? Jim – Data only.
á Jon Meyer
– Do you have any experience with FBB in heavy seas. Mike – They havenÕt seen any
weather problems with the system.
á Dave – Is
the maintenance URL linked? Mike
– No, you need to bookmark it.
á Rich Findley
– He is heading a group that will look at optimal communication
strategies for the future.
á Mike –
Use both – HSS and FBB
á Dave OÕGorman
– Why doesnÕt FBB kill open sessions? Mike – They are working on this.
á Toby Martin
– Is the pool for all of the ships?
So if one ship isnÕt using FBB, there is more for everyone else? Mike – Yes.
á Ben Jokinen - Has there been anything done on having to
reset the sessions? Mike Gagne - Yes. There is a firmware update that is not
out to the public. WHOI has the firmware. Mike has the firmware upgrade.
Contact Mike for firmware
á Anthony Johnson
– Is there any experience using this in the polar
regions? Mike – Yes.
á Jim Holik
– R/V Gould is using FBB and
things are working well. There is
a gap at high latitudes.
á Mike – If
you are going from one Satellite to another there is no gap except for when you
are operating in Polar regions.
á Anthony –
Has anyone integrated FBB with VoIP PBX?
Mike – They are just starting to do this.
á Mike –
you can get extra handsets. Meyer
– They just did that but need POE (power over the Ethernet). Toby – you just need an injector.
Break
Re-Cap of Monday Focus Group Sessions:
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response
Effort – Aubri Steele provided
a summary of her presentation from Monday. Her slides are available as Appendix XV <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/GulfOilSpillResponse.pdf>.
Discussion:
á
The UNOLS
operations in the Gulf were supported by rapid response money.
á Aubri Steele – We need to encourage our science
community to use this money that is available from BP
á Wet Labs has an 8 weeks turn around time
á Dave Forcucci – USCG sent two CTD systems to the Gulf
from Healy
á Jim Holik – The proposal reviews for the rapid
response funding was quick.
á There were some operational problems. The heat exchanger on Walton Smith failed.
á
Dave
Nelson – On Endeavor, they used
fresh water from their ballast tanks for air conditioning intakes, laundry etc.
Update on the State of
Multibeam Systems –
Dale Chayes provided the summary.
His slides are included as Appendix
XVI <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap16.pdf>. Dale provided a list of multibeam systems in the UNOLS Fleet, Ron Brown, and Healy. They would like to establish a multibeam support program. multibeam
education is being offered. Dale
offered to take a few people on a cruise (June 12, 2011) that is planned for multibeam evaluation.
Discussion:
á
What is
the cost of the UNOLS multibeam inventory? Dale - $45 million includes the ships
in presentation list.
á Dave Forcucci - Is there standard procedure for sea
acceptance tests? Dale Chayes -
Most venders have them. Most people modify them for proper acceptance.
á Dave Forcucci - Does UNOLS have an accepted protocol? Dale
Chayes - No but sounds like a good idea.
á Richard Perry - Was Healy
the first funded acceptance test?
Chayes – No.
á Dan –
Where is the data from acceptance tests of the current systems. Dale – It should be in R2R. Woody – Not all of it is there. There are issues with foreign EEZs
and some data cannot be released.
á Dan –
What would be extremely useful, is the up-to-date performance levels of the existing multibeam
systems. Dale – This would
need to be a funded effort.
á Jim – If
it is not going to happen unless the committee is going to be funded. It can be funded
á Dale is working
with Larry Mayer and will provide a proposal/plan forward when they are
comfortable with it.
CTD data processing,
limitations of Seabird software
– Courtney Schatzman and Alex Quintero provided
the presentation. Their long-term
goal is to work with SeaBird to get plug and play. They
would like to work with SBE on updating
á
Rich
Perry used the term Ò well taken care of sensorÓ and using the recommend care
procedure
á
Andrew
Woogen – Asked about SBE info regarding drift in sensors. Temp over time?
Courtney
– yes.
UNOLS Technical Services – Alice Doyle provided a presentation
on Best Practices and on Pre-Cruise Planning. Her slides are included as Appendix XVIII http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Tuesday/201011rvtap18.pdf.
Alice
discussed an effort to develop
Marine Technician Best Practices within the fleet to serve as a tool for
technicians and to standardize operations and data collection where applicable.
This will provide help to inexperienced technicians, help to capture some
of the expertise within the fleet, and help ensure that the best possible data is
being collected. A list of some
areas under consideration for best practices documentation is provided in the
slides.
Best Practices would be collected on a single website. The
documentation is going to be coordinated
through Alice but controlled by experts within the
fleet).
Discussion:
á Rich Findley – This needs to be done. It is a good
idea.
á Jim Holik - Good idea, needs to start
á Jules Hummon – This is a big red flag for Jules. Sounds
like a cookbook. We cannot educate a person to run a system by referring them
to a best practice. She worries about the term ÒBest Practices.Ó
Perhaps it could be renamed as ÒDocument References/List.Ó
á Toby Martin - Alliance Coastal Technology
(ACT) has a great site with some of this info on Best Practices.
á Phil McGillivary – They have scientists
who come on the ship that want to use equipment that is not widely used. Vibracores is
an example of gear that is not widely used. A reference document would be useful. The USCG MST may not have ever seen a
particular piece of equipment before so having a reference document would be
helpful. He tries to find video
clips of equipment operation. This
is what he sees the most need for.
á Richard Perry – He does not like the
term ÒBest Practice.Ó Best
practices are different from a ÒHow ToÓ document. Best Practices is a refinement of an art; it is not the art.
á Jim Holik – Right now we have
nothing. This is an evolving kind
of thing.
Alice also presented issues associates with pre-cruise planning and how
to keep information current. Also,
we need to determine what information is informative to the community.
Discussion:
á Alice - What should we do about TSI?
á Tim McGovern – He thinks that the TSI
exercise was good.
á Annette DeSilva provided information about the Technical
Services Information (TSI) website:
o There
was an RVTEC committee set up to address this issue
o They
came up with an outline on cruise planning
o RVTEC
endorsed the outline 3-4 years ago
o An
on-line form was created that could be populated by each tech service group.
o Erin
Jackson in the UNOLS Office is available to pre-populate the information
á Willis – There is a
disconnect between the TSI and ship time request. The PI doesnÕt look at the TSI.
á Rich Findley – The tech proposals
require that the services be updated.
It gets updated for the proposal, but not for all the other places.
á Tim McGovern – it would be good to know
all of the places were the same information is required to be updated
á Dave Forcucci – The Healy system forces
them to provide updates and lets you know if you left anything out.
á Cruise manuals and websites vary quite a bit
amongst operators
á Dave Nelson – The cruise planning
manual is very dynamic.
á Alice – there are some very good
databases: URI, WHOI, USCG Icefloe. Etc.
Adjourn Day 1
RVTEC Meeting Day 2 - Wednesday,
November 17th
Call to Order &
Announcements – Rich Findley
called the Day 2 of the meeting to order at 9:00AM.
SWAB Program – Jim Happell provide the SWAB Program
report. His slides are included as
Appendix
XIX <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Wednesday/201011rvtap19.pdf>.
Operation SWAB was developed to help
protect background14C and 3H measurement from contamination. It is run by the
University of MiamiÕs Tritium Laboratory. These isotopes are frequently
used in radio-labeling experiments conducted by
biologists. Even small amounts of
14C and 3H from the labeling experiments inadvertently spilled on
a ship have the potential to adversely affect background measurement of these isotopes.
Samples are collected and analyzed by a lab that has no stake in whether
or not contamination is present.
Reports of the results are delivered to the ship operators and
scientists involved. A SWAB test should be performed on the ship
and Rad Van
after every cruise where 14C or 3H is used.
There is no direct cost to the operating institution for a SWAB test. Jim can be contacted to schedule a SWAB
test or with questions.
Discussion:
á Phil
McGillivary – If you have a contamination event difference between 14C
and tritium, can they tell the difference? Jim – Yes.
á Dave Nelson - Do you have a historic record? Jim
Happell - All data is there but nothing is formalized in a plot. There are also
annual reports.
á Jim Happell - The purpose of test is to determine if
there is a contamination and if there is, get it taken care of.
á Steve Hartz - What is the standard for locking and
refrigeration in RAD vans? Jim
Happell - There should be refrigerator in the van.
á Phil McGillivary - The door for the van is the lock for
the RAD material.
á Jim Happell – We will start to see lower
background levels because they were funded for a new LSC that is much more
accurate.
á Phil McGillivary – What is the turnaround time
after a SWAB test to get the results?
Jim Happell - About a week of turnaround time.
á Dave Nelson – Endeavor
just did a cruise in the gulf, will that affect the ship? Jim Happell
– It should have no effect on the background.
á Rich Findley - We use electronic locks on RAD vans.
á Aubri Steele – There is a cyber lock on the van.
This will identify who actually gets access to the van. Keys are tied to people
and they now have a record of who and when it was accessed.
JMS
Inspection Report –
Ted Colburn provided a report on the NSF Ship Inspection Program. His slides are included as Appendix
XX <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Wednesday/201011rvtap20.pdf>.
Ted recommended that the marine technicians submit Post Cruise
Assessment Reports (PCARs), as they would be very helpful.
The major purposes of the NSF
Ship Inspection Program are:
á To assure that
the capabilities of the research vessel and technical support meet accepted
scientific community standards and expectations;
á To assure the
seaworthiness and safety of research vessels supported by NSF meet or exceed
the standards set forth by the UNOLS Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS),
and applicable requirements of the International Maritime Organization,
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and
the U.S. Coast Guard;
á To ensure
NSF-owned ships as capital assets, are being adequately maintained;
á To ensure
NSF-funded science is scheduled on properly outfitted and maintained vessels.
Ted reviewed some of the common findings (the
full list of findings is included in his slides):
á Good
progress during the past few years in keeping CTD and flow through water system
sensors within the calibration periods.
á Not as good for
the meteorological sensors.
á Most vessels
have a system for tracking sensor calibration schedules.
á Some
vessels are making good progress on developing a set of Òoperating procedures
for all installed and portable equipment and instrumentation available to
support scientific investigatorsÓ.
á Most
vessels have not determined the ultimate design load (design capacity) of their
frames. Must be 150% of the strongest cable or wire breaking strength. Will become more important as Appendix
B becomes implemented. Appendix B
will have additional requirements.
á Most vessels
have not established Safe Working Loads for deck sockets or put in place an
associated periodic testing program.
This will also be important as Appendix B becomes implemented.
á Progress
is being made toward clear bold readable labels on all controls and associated
switches.
Ted reported on Appendix A related progress:
á Higher rate
cable monitoring systems are coming into the fleet
á Some ships have
the audible and visual alarms operating
á Some ships have
posted cable SWL in clear view of the operators
á At least one
ship uses weak links.
For Appendix A
compliance inspectors will be looking for:
á Written
qualifications for winch operators
á Formal training
programs for winch operators (FS 2.5 and lower)
á Systematic
programs to maintain and demonstrate tensiometer
calibrations within 4% (FS 2.5)
á Implementation
of weak links: Adjust for cable
loads for any deep work.
Another inspection benefit is it provides and
opportunity to spread concepts and experiences from one vessel to another as we
conduct the inspections. There is
now a dedicated web page that
highlights these findings: http://www.unols.org/committees/rvoc/ShipBestPractices/ShipInspectBestPractices.html.
Ted provided some examples.
Ted
provided some tips for providing
a more ADA capable vessel:
á Incorporate
more ADA awareness and requirements into the pre-cruise planning process.
á Improve access
to science berthing from the main deck.
á Improve markings
to access the main deck from the science berthing area.
á Improve
lighting, handrails, and retro-reflective tape in stairwells and egress routes.
á Install visual
alarms to augment audible alarms.
á Remove
obstacles in the passageways.
Discussion:
á Dale Chayes
– You did one inspection of an icebreaker. How did this go?
Ted – It was strictly a science review.
á Marc Willis
– Use of weak links on wire, does not relieve you of the ultimate load of
frame/design capacity. Ted –
correct.
RVTEC Business:
Voting Procedures and
transition from Vice Chair/Chair-Elect – Annette DeSilva presented a proposed strategy for
transitioning from Vice Chair to Chair-Elect. The details are included in slides available at http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Rev2RVTEC_Officer_TransitionDraft.pdf and summarized below:
RVTEC shall have a Chair and
Vice Chair/Chair-Elect. Nominations
for the RVTEC Chair and Vice Chair/Chair- Elect will be reviewed and voted on
by the standing RVTEC members. The standing RVTEC will select one nominee for
each open position and forward the nomination to the UNOLS Chair. Under normal circumstances
the Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect will serve one three-year term and then serve one
three- year term as Chair for a total of six years maximum. Date of office
shall commence at the close of the Annual RVTEC Meeting. To transition from Vice Chair to
Chair-Elect, the elections of RVTEC officers (Chair and Chair-Elect) must be
re- aligned to occur in the same year.
The proposed strategy for
transition is:
á At the 2010 RVTEC Meeting, hold elections for the RVTEC
Chair.
á The term length would be
two years.
á At the 2010 RVTEC Meeting, hold elections for the Vice
Chair/Chair-Elect position for a two year term.
á At the end of the term as the Chair-Elect/Vice-Chair, the
Chair-Elect would become RVTEC Chair for a 3- year term.
A motion was made and passed to accept the
proposed strategy for transition (Chayes/McGovern).
Next,
Annette presented a proposed strategy for voting on RVTEC matters:
á If a matter requires a discussion and vote by the RVTEC but sooner than
the next scheduled meeting, a discussion and vote of the matter by
correspondence (e.g., electronic mail) may be held.
á A motion can be introduced for voting by a UNOLS representative of
RVTEC. The matter for vote will be
distributed to the full RVTEC community email list for a discussion period of
at least 7 days. Based
on the discussion, the motion can be revised accordingly.
á The matter will then be put to vote to the ÒRVTEC_voteÓ
email list for a period of 7 days.
á A vote taken by correspondence will require a quorum (as defined in the
RVTEC By Laws) and will be in accordance to the same voting rules as for
regular votes
á
Ballots may be
submitted by correspondence, fax or email to the UNOLS Office, where the count
shall be compiled and reported to the RVTEC.
It was also propose that a new RVTEC email list be created RVTEC_vote@unols.org UNOLS
Member Institutions can appoint one RVTEC representative to the RVTEC_vote email list.
Discussion:
á Dale Chayes – We need a clear definition of what
constitutes a UNOLS operator? Annette DeSilva – A UNOLS Operator
representative is from an institution that operates a UNOLS facility (ship,
aircraft, NDSF)
á Annette DeSilva - UNOLS institution will be invited to
designate an RVTEC voting representative.
á Woody Sutherland - Are all UNOLS members informed of the
option to be a part of RVTEC
á Annette DeSilva – UNOLS institutions should be
informed about RVTEC, but may not be.
Presentations are made to the membership at each UNOLS Annual Meeting
about RVTEC.
á Dale Chayes - Identified as wanting a discussion on the need
for a second on a motion.
á Jim Postal: Who can make a motion? Dale Chayes - Only UNOLS institutions can make motions.
Future Meeting Formats:
á Toby Martin
suggested a new format for focus sessions by the Òbar campÓ model. On the first day of the meeting
(Mondays) have a long lunch break and end early to allow more time for casual
interchanges. Toby suggested that
meeting participants post on the bulletin board areas that they would like to
have discussions on. Individuals
would have to choose the sessions that you want to go to because there would be
concurrent session.
á Dale Chayes
– would like to have a place where you can have equipment set up all
week. Then participants can visit the equipment throughout the week.
Winch and Wire Session:
Research Vessel Safety Standards
(RVSS) Appendix A: Wire
& Cable Safe Working Loads – Rich Findley provided an informative
presentation on the RVSS Appendix A.
His slides are included as Appendix XXIa
http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Wednesday/201011rvtap21.pdf.
Tension members (Wire Rope & Cables) are normally operated at 20 of their
breaking strength by shore side regulation. In order to meet scientific research requirements, it is
necessary to operate at 50% of the breaking strength or higher. Appendix ÒAÓ of the UNOLS Research
Vessel Safety Standards was created in order to operate safely at
these higher tensions.
Rich is organizing Appendix A Workshops that will be held regionally. The first workshop is planned for
December 14-15 at WHOI. RichÕs slide package includes 159 slides. This package contains information that will also be
presented during the workshops.
Below is a summary of some of the major topics of RichÕs presentation. Meeting discussions are inserted as
they relate to specific slides in the presentation.
Presentation Topics:
á Shipboard
Priorities
á General
Definitions (as they apply to Appendix A and the workshop slides)
á 3x19
Oceanographic Wire Rope
á Oceanographic
(Electromechanical) Cables
á Equipment
Lowering Dynamics
á Operational
Characteristics of Wire Rope and Cable
á LCI-90i Display
Calibration and Use
Some general comments that Rich
reported:
á Appendix ÒAÓ
applies to tension members.
Appendix ÒBÓ applies to winches, over boarding structures (a-frames,
j-frames etc.), sheaves and ship foundations.
á Grades of Wire
Rope - All of our
wires are made of ÒExtra Improved Plow Steel.Ó After the workshops are complete, we will go back to
improving the wire.
Discussions/Comments as they pertain to the
slides:
Slide 18
– Preforming:
ÒThe preformed operation in wire ropes confer more stability to
them; it reduces internal stresses, giving a more homogenous distribution of
load on wires and strands.Ó
á Dave Nelson – When you say more stable,
what does that mean? Rich –
It is better when tension winding.
Slide 34
—Cables Free to
Rotate: When a cable is free to
rotate or is forced to unwind by improper operating conditions the breaking
strength is significantly reduced and when it does break, the inner armor will
break first and then the outer armor wires will stretch out before they break.
á Dave Nelson
gave an example of the loss of a CTD due to rotation of the wire.
á Rich Findley
– We have that the wire be tested while free to rotate, using a swivel.
á Daryl Swensen
– Are they going to test both ways, or just with the swivel. Rich - You can ask them to test both
ways. The swivel breaks are
accruing at over 12,000 lbs.
Slides 37 and 38 - .322 Cable Specifications:
á Rich - The
manufacturer part number for the 322 wire, is different for the UNOLS cable
(but is the same wire with different loads 5,000 vs. 2500
á
Dave Nelson – Does this only
apply to UNOLS wire?
á
Chris Griner - Rick Trask is
taking other non-UNOLS wires for testing.
á
Marc Willis – He has noticed
the change in the number on loads for the .322 cables over the years.
Slide 40 - Z-Kinking of Conductors:
á Chris Griner
– If you end for end a .322 cable can you reuse it? Rich – You should not.
á Dave Fisichella
– If you are using a litehouser. It is under tension.
á Chris Griner
– What about wire rope? Rich
– if you end for end the wire rope, you still have to worry about
it. There is no easy solution. You want to do the break test on the
end that has been under the most load.
á Marc Willis
– He thinks that the synthetic wire is a bigger problem.
Slide 44 -.681 Cable Specifications:
á
Dave Nelson - Does this
construction affect bend? Rich Findley - Do not know.
Slide 62 –Payout and
Tension for Entire CTD Cast:
á
Dave Nelson - Is heave dynamic or
static? Rich Findley - Heave Is
dynamic.
Slide 72 - Tension Member Behavior in Bending
á
Dave Nelson gave an example of a
MOCNESS breaking at a roller feed.
á
Rich Findley – The lead-in
for level wind heads on ALL of our winches are too small!
Slide 79 - Effect of Sheave Contact Arc on Bending Fatigue Life:
á Ben Jokinen
– Does this mean that we all have to get new large sheaves?
á Everyone chimed
in about the problem.
á Ben Jokinen
– Is it worthwhile to have an analysis conducted of our wires and sheaves
and to look at the service life of our existing lead-in systems?
Slide 83: Proposed Changes to
Appendix A:
á Marc Willis – How much longer
will this be evolving before the changes become final? While building a new vessel (Sikuliaq), it is difficult to meet a
moving target. If it continues to
change, what is the incentive to buy new equipment to meet Appendix A? Rich – Hopefully the changes will
be final in a few weeks. We
thought that we are ready to go, but discovered that there was a problem and it
is still in review.
á Ted Coburn – Should there be
consideration of minimum drum size?
Rich - It would have to comply.
á Tim McGovern – is there a
recommended Diameter for the drum?
Rich – No, larger is better.
á Richard Perry – In our
calculations, should we be using the smallest Diameter dimension of the system
(level roller feed)?
Next
Rich provided a review of Appendix A.
He mentioned that the
HANDBOOK OF OCEANOGRAPHIC WINCH, WIRE AND CABLE TECHNOLGY is on the CD that
Rich and Aubri distributed.
Aubri Steele presented a report on Winch Monitoring Equipment. Her slides are included on the CD that
was distributed.
A presentation on the MTNW LCI-90i Display and Calibration Procedure
was provided. Slides are included
as Appendix XXIb,
http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap21b.pdf.
Tim Rezanko provided a tabletop Demonstration
on Winch Monitoring as its relevance to Appendix A.
General Discussion on the Winch
and Wire Presentations:
á Daryl Swensen
– If a scientist that comes aboard and wants to operate the winch that
they must be qualified and they have to indicate this in writing.
á Richard Perry
– Does the science owner of a winch have to show that they have met
everything in Appendix A? Rich
Findley – They have to show the calculations. The science owner would have to provide the information that
is on the spreadsheet. Rich
reviewed the spreadsheet - Tension Member Load Estimate.
á
Dave Nelson - Does Appendix A
require lubing? Rich Findley - No, it recommends but does not require.
á
Andrew Woogen - Is there
recommended wire lube? Group - Corlube
á
Bill Fanning - Does Rick Trask let
you know what kind of break was done? Rich Findley: No, not to the best of his
knowledge.
á Marc Willis
– The sensors that he has seen are linear. He pointed out that the sensor does not register below a
certain threshold.
á Dale Chayes
– There are implications about getting better sensors. This was in regard to 4% of applied
load. He recommends that the
wording be changed to % accuracy.
á Rich Findley
– He can go back to the Safety Committee with RVTEC recommended changes.
á Dave Nelson
– At FS 5 we donÕt have to have the tension monitoring system.
á There was a lot
of discussion on the sensors/load cells.
á Tension
Monitoring – Change Òapplied loadÓ to the safe working load.
á Dave Nelson
– Would he have to calibrate after every cruise. Rich Findley – Calibrate every
six months at the factor of safety lower than 5. If you donÕt come back to homeport, you will need to
calibrate when you are away or else you would have to operate at FS of 5.
á James Postel
– ÒImposedÓ is a confusing word.
á
Rich Perry - Does any further part
of approval process involve a legal review? Rich Findley – Yes.
á
Dave Nelson - How does this apply
to gear you are dragging? Rich Findley - The weight of package plus transient
load.
á
Tim McGovern - Has this been
conveyed to the science community?
á
Rich Findley: Plans are for
ratification of Appendix A in June 2011.
á
Phil McGillivary: - Question on what the payout alarm is
for? Rich Findley - When the
package is getting close to surface.
á
What other kind of alarms can
there be? Tom Rezanka
- Just
about anything you want.
á
Dave Nelson - Is the TAR function
still available as with the older units.
Tom Rezanka
– He needs to investigate.
á
Group Discussion - TAR is not
allowed because it throws off calibration.
á
Ted Colburn - Do you get a
trend on the calibration? Group
Answer - Only if you keep a documentation history of your calibrations.
R/V Atlantic Explorer Ship Tour – Day 2 of the meeting presentations adjourned
and RVTEC members were provided with an opportunity to tour the BIOS research
vessel, Atlantic Explorer.
RVTEC Meeting – Day
3: Thursday, November 18th
Call to Order and Announcements
– Rich Findley called
Day 3 of the RVTEC meeting to order at 9:00 am.
Kilo MoanaÕs New Motion-Compensated Crane/Winch CTD
System – Tim McGovern
provided the report on Kilo MoanaÕs
load handling system, Òthe god, the bad, and the ugly.Ó His slides are included as Appendix
XXII, http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap22.pdf.
The ÒgoodÓ features include the craneÕs launch, deploy/recover, and
motion compensation capabilities.
The Òbad,Ó is the problems and failures of the system, such as, the loss
of the Caley winch motor in March 2010.
The Dynacon winch has been installed back on the ship as a backup
handling system.
Discussion:
á David
Fisichella – How does the head move? Tim – There is a roller system and a soft area for the
wire to move.
á Is this the same
system that is on the R/V Hugh Sharp? Tim – The two systems were both
based on the load handling system design.
á
Dale Chayes - How does this system
control tension, by rendering? Tim
McGovern - When it gets a pre-determined tension it will render.
á
Jules Hummon
- Do you think one of the problems was a frequency-bleeding problem between the
two systems? Tim McGovern – Yes.
á
Jim
Holik - What did you do for CTDs operations in the
interim? Tim McGovern – CTD
operations were with the .680 wire through the A-frame.
á
Rich
Perry – What is the relative cost for repair for the wire running issue
compared to the slip rings system? Tim McGovern
– The work on the wiring was about $20K and it was about $ 50K for the slip ring.
á
Dave
Nelson - Who is going to get the training on this system? Tim McGovern - Both the techs and engineers are going through training.
á Doug Russel – There seems to be high maintenance requirements
for the system. Tim – Yes, it
can take very long. When the
system is working it is simplified.
But it takes a lot of technology to operate properly. U. Hawaii had to take an integrated
approach for system operation with the crew and technicians. The techs support the computer side of
the system and the crew deals with the hydraulics.
á Woody Sutherland
– Was the original plan to use the moon-pool for CTD operations? Tim – Yes, but there was concern
over the water pressure through the moon-pool. The moon-poolÕs diameter is
seven feet and the CTD diameter is six feet, so clearance was very tight. They
did it once and never again.
Appendix B - UNOLS Load
Handling System Design Standards - Ted
Coburn (JMS) provided the report on the Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS)
Appendix B. The purpose of his
report was to introduce the concepts in the draft Appendix B. His slides are included as Appendix
XXIII, http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap23.pdf .
JMS was invited by Matt Hawkins at NSF to take a look at the draft
Appendix B. Ted provided a brief
summary of Appendix B. The
objective of the RVSS Appendix B document is to provide a unified code of
practice for the structural design and operating principles of overboard
handling systems used on board vessels in the UNOLS Fleet. All UNOLS vessels must comply with
Appendix B. Appendix B applies to
all overboard handling systems and their component parts intended for use on
UNOLS vessels. A sample of these
components include winches, overboarding appliances
(e.g., frames, davits, cranes, booms, etc), sheaves,
foundations for all of these components, deck tie downs (sockets), and shackles.
Appendix B is to be used in conjunction with, and its application is to
be fully compatible with, Appendix A - UNOLS Rope and Cable Safe Working
Load Standards. The cable or
rope employed is considered part of the system for any given deployment
scenario.
Some of the major topics
covered by Ted included:
á The Maximum Capability Document (MCD) - For each component, the
maximum allowed capability is determined by calculation.
á
Labeling and
Documentation
- As a minimum, the system components shall be labeled with the following
information: Maximum Permissible Tension (MPT), Test Date, Intended Purpose,
MPT Diagram, and Reference Drawing.
á Overboard Handling Data Document (OHDD) - The Overboard Handling Data Document is
a standard data sheet that shall be developed for an overboard
handling system for existing systems, new systems equipment, and
components. Each overboard
handling system will have a Maximum Capability Document developed based upon
that overboard handling systemÕs OHDD and evaluation of the MPT for all the
components.
á Maximum Permissible Tension (MPT) - The maximum permissible tension (MPT)
of the system shall either be the Safe Working Tension (SWT) or the wire/cable
SWL from Appendix A, whichever is LESS.
á Tension Mitigation Devices and Systems
á
Maximum Anticipated
Operating Tension (MOAT) - The MOAT
must be less than the overboard handling systemÕs Maximum Permissible Tension
(MPT)
Discussion:
á Marc Willis –
These systems are new to us, but not to the rest of the world. Render systems have been around.
á Richard Perry
– Is there a criteria for the rendering systems? Ted – No. They do fail and it isnÕt addressed in
Appendix B.
á Phil
McGillivary – How many different rendering systems are in the fleet? Ted – There is the Dynacon system
and the Caley system. Dynacon
worked fine, but Caley had some issues.
á Tim McGovern
– What is the cost to retrofit a rendering system? Bill Byam – about $30K
á Steve Hartz
– How will Appendix B be implemented? Will there be a document on how to maintain the
systems? Will there be
training? Whose responsibility
will it be? Ted – There will
be a lot of required documentation.
Each vessel will need Naval Architect services for the initial system
review. Ted encouraged sharing of
info and tables across the fleet. Bill
Byam – NSF (Matt) has indicated that this will be supported.
á David
Fisichella – Would portable winch systems be required to comply with
Appendix B? Ted – Yes.
á Rich Findley
– He thinks that Appendix B will be approved at the RVOC meeting in May
2011. Then it would go to Council
for approval. Once approved, there
will be a two-year implementation period before mandatory compliance.
UNOLS
Van Pool – Bill Byam provided a report on the UNOLS van pool. His
slides are included as Appendix
XXIV, http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap24.pdf .
The purpose of the van pool is to supply standard IOS portable laboratory vans for ocean research. Fred Jones at OSU runs the West Coast pool and Tim Deering at U. Delaware runs the east coast pool. Bill reviewed the van pool inventory (see slides). Two new vans were added in 2010; a cold van and a general purpose van. Bill reported that this year one of the vans experienced damage, most likely during commercial shipping. Commercial transportation is hard on all vans. Bill encouraged everyone to properly prepare the vans for transport to reduce the potential for damage. The link to the van pool web site is included in the slides.
Discussion:
á Dale – Transportation
on air-cushioned trucks should be specified when shipping vans. You might think about putting placards
on the vans for people who arenÕt familiar with the shipping routine.
á Dave Forcucci
– The vans are on a first-come, first serve basis.
á Bill Byam
– Shipping and early planning is a big challenge for the van program.
á Rich Findley
– Are there LCSs in the rad
van? Bill – yes.
Year in Review – Each marine technician group was
asked to provide a very brief presentation that covers the following three
topics:
á Annual
Operations Recap (Geographic area, Number of days, research disciplines
supported, etc.)
á Highlight(s) of
the year
á Most
challenging issue or biggest technical hurdle
The presentations have been compiled into one document and are
available as Appendix XXV, http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap25.pdf .
The following presentations were made:
á Walton Smith – Jim Lovin
reported that Walton Smith
participated in rapid response Gulf of Mexico oil spill response efforts.
á UW Ships - Casey
Canfield reported on Clifford A. Barnes
and Thomas G. Thompson. The Thompson
had some z-drive problems. There
were many different techs that helped out on the Thompson. This worked
out well, but was challenging.
á Atlantic Explorer - Matt
Wilkinson reported. There were 136
operating days in 2010. Most trips were focused around Bermuda, with one trip
to Puerto Rico. The highlights
included that the ADCP is working a lot better, with no interference. A highlight was also being able to attend
this RVTEC meeting. A big
challenge was mobilization for a WHOI mooring trip. Overall, it was a good year.
á WHOI Ships:
- Atlantis – Catie
Graver reported that it was a very busy year and they did vent work with an annual
trip to support CORKs. Currently they are in the Gulf of Mexico and next month they
will be using Alvin for the oil spill
research. The ship returned to
WHOI for the first time since 2006.
One of the biggest challenges this year was carrying 11 vans to
Sacramento for air quality sampling and ship exhaust plumes. This was a non-Alvin cruise. Next month, the ship will go to the shipyard
to replace the multibeam system.
- Knorr - Chris Griner showed the cruise track and reported that most
work has been in the Atlantic. There
were two back-to-back long core cruises. Knorr
experienced thruster problems and is heading back to port. This year they completed the 7th
long-core cruise. 150-ft was the longest
core collected.
- Oceanus – Robb Hagg reported that Oceanus was diverted to the Gulf of
Mexico in response to the oil spill.
During one of their cruises, Samantha Joye
found a mat of oil on sea floor.
There are a lot of good links to this cruise on the Oceanus site. Robb
reported that the Video Plankton Recorder sends data to the lab for automatic
classification. During one Oceanus cruise they experimented with
FBB and HiSeasNet. The
transfer between the systems is automatic.
á Blue Heron – Jason Agnich
reported that he started the year on Atlantic
Explorer and it is very valuable to see other operations. Blue
HeronÕs year started in May and had a lot of problems with their new GenSet installation.
The season ran through mid Sept.
á Cape Hatteras – Tina Thompson and Stephen Jalickee reported that there were 13 cruises for 221
days. Fisheries operations were different
than the typical oceanography and quite the experience. Work is around the clock. Working with MATE interns was very
rewarding. Tina reported that she
worked in the Gulf of Mexico and the most difficult challenge was the rapid
response requirement and getting everything staged.
á Endeavor – Dave Nelson reported that they
had 190 funded days. Initially the
yearÕs operations were supposed to begin in April, but they had a rapid
response cruise to Haiti. Then they
got deployed to the oil spill.
They did black carbon work off of Africa and air sampling along the way. They also conducted fish surveys off of
the Georges Bank.
á Hugh R. Sharp – Wynn Tucker reported that this
year was a light year for the ship with 148 days from Canada to the Chesapeake Bay. This was their third year of supporting
the Georges Bank operations. They are looking to hire one of the MATE Interns.
á Kilo Moana – Kuhio Vellalos reported that their biggest challenge is the Caley
system.
á Langseth – Anthony Johnson reported that
the Langseth had a challenging
year. While in shipyard, the yard
damaged all 13 multibeam receivers. In April they did their JMS inspection
and then finally went to Honolulu to begin science operations. One cruise was lost because of engine
control problems. This left one
cruise on their schedule. There
were two medical diversions and a crew member died. The highlight of this year will be the new
ADCP. Next year six cruises are
planned and one is 3D.
á SIO Ships:
- Melville – Jon Meyer reported that a highlight
this year was the installation of a new radar system. A challenge was the rapid response cruise to Chile.
- New Horizon – Josh Manger reported the ship
had 165 days of work. A giant
squid was caught during their cruise to Guaymus. The biggest challenge was that the scientist
was bit by the squid and had to be stitched by the captain.
- Robert Gordon Sproul – Josh
Manger reported that they installed a giant tower on the ship. There were operations with FLIP, which were a highlight and a
challenge. The cruise was also coordinated
with an aircraft.
- Roger Revelle – Josh Manger reported that the challenge
of the year was ÒTyphoon Chasing.Ó
á Pelican – Joe Malbrough reported that it
was a busy year with 241 days and will have a similar year in 2011. They were heading out to sea the day of
the spill. When they returned from that cruise, they immediately redeployed for
CTD and core operations. Joe
thanked Jim Holik for support during the spill cruises. The longest cruise was 30 days for
SAIC.
á Point Sur – Andrew Woogen reported that they
had a 70 day cruise to the Aleutian Islands, AK. A challenge was dealing with Triaxis problems.
He attended network training in Los Vegas and it was very useful.
á Wecoma – Dave OÕGorman reported that the
ship had 18 cruises. A challenge was the generator tearing itself apart. The Barnes recovered equipment. Did OBS as well.
á NOAA vessels - Mike
Webb reported that NOAA has 20 ships and he not going to talk about all of them. When the spill occurred, they diverted
some of the NOAA ships to the Gulf of Mexico. The Okeanus
Explorer went to Indonesia. The Miller
Freeman will be laid up next year.
Most of the Hawaii ships have been doing dive work in that area. NOAA brought two new ships on-line. The biggest challenge has been getting
set up in Newport, OR.
á Healy – Dave Forcucci reported that the biggest challenge is the noise in the
systems.
MATE Update and Long Term
Internship Program –
Tami Lansford provided an updated on the MATE program. Her slides are included as Appendix
XXVI, http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap26.pdf.
The MATE Center just published new Knowledge
and Skill Guidelines for Oceanographic Instrumentation Technicians. They worked to identify the knowledge and skills that are needed for
this career. Tami encouraged the
group to provide feedback on the guidelines.
Tami provided an overview of the Internship
Program. Since 1999, 148 community
college and university students have been placed on UNOLS vessels. MATE intends to host 14-17 interns in one
to eight week internships each summer from 2011-2014. MATE worked with UNOLS to create an annual 6-month
internship on two different vessels.
Thirty applications are under review for this yearÕs program.
A survey was conducted on past interns and
there is data on 81% of the interns as of this fall. 33% are currently working in marine science and technology
positions. 53%
of interns this year were from community colleges. InternsÕ
interests, knowledge, and skills are carefully matched to mentor requirements. The mentor makes the final decision on
which student(s) they host.
In 2010, 14 interns were placed
on UNOLS and USCG vessels: Cape
Hatteras, Endeavor, Oceanus, Pelican, Sharp, Thompson, and Walton Smith, and USCG Healy. 100%
of mentors said the intern made their job easier and they would hire another
MATE intern in the future. Four interns were hired immediately following
their internships.
MATE is working to better understand the reasons
for and solutions to low levels of minority applicants to the MATE Internship
Program. A survey was conducted
and Tami reviewed some of the preliminary results.
Tami encouraged the marine technician groups
to commit to providing internship opportunities as early as possible in
2011. When the mentoring guide is
released, marine techs are encouraged to read it and share it with mentors.
Discussion:
á Marc Willis
– It would be useful to have a Marine Tech mentor attend the class and
let the students know what they would be asked to do at sea.
UNOLS Reports:
Fleet Improvement Committee
(FIC) – Marc Willis provided the FIC report. His slides are included as Appendix XXVII, http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap27.pdf.
FIC activities in 2010 included
an in-depth review of RCRV design issues in response to
NSFÕs request for input. FIC continues to monitor ongoing construction/renewal efforts (ARRV
and Ocean Class). They are also
continuing debriefs of new handling systems and the WHOI Long Coring
System. Marc reviewed the FIC
activities planned for 2011 (fleet renewal, greening the fleet, update
projected service life end dates, develop a proposal
for a Chief Scientist Training Workshop).
Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) – Steve Hartz and Marc Willis prepared a
presentation on the status of R/V Sikuliaq. Slides are included as Appendix XXVIII, http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap28.pdf.
Marc presented the slides.
ÒSikuliaqÓ
means new ice. Sikuliaq is one of the first U.S. ships made to Ice Class PC5.
In October 2008 the Final Design Review (FDR) for the vessel
was completed. January 2010 was the shipyard contract start date with
Marinette Marine Corporation. The project is well into the design
verification and transfer to the shipyard. The project cost is $123,179,168.
As part of the construction effort, full-scale mock-ups of
some of the vessel spaces are being built. The spaces include: the
bridge, the Science Control Room, a wheelchair accessibility State Room, and
laboratories (Main Lab, Wet Lab, Electrical/Computer Lab, Analytical Lab, and
Upper Labs). The usefulness of the mock-ups has already been
realized. Photos of the mock-ups are included in the slides.
Marc explained the weight issue associated
with SikuliaqÕs
design. The weight
estimate was delivered in Sept 2010 and was ~ 300LT greater than the contract
estimate. This was due to inaccurate
weights from vendors (30-50% of the problem), major equipment (engines, cranes...),
margins (20-30%), amd other errors/omissions. As a solution, they will increase the vessel length by 6-feet and change
steel to aluminum in some areas.
They hope to restart shipyard construction soon. They weight issue put them behind by 4
to 6 weeks.
The Keel Laying ceremony is scheduled for February
2011. Launch is planned for April 2012 and science trials are scheduled
for the period from April to mid-June 2013. Science operations are
expected to begin in late 2013.
Lastly, Marc made a personal comment that there was far too much
negativity at this meeting. He is
interested in hearing what people are doing to support marine science. It is not constructive to criticize the
presenters.
RVOC and Safety Committee – Rich Findley reported that the Safety
CommitteeÕs primary focus is now on the RVSS Appendix B. Any input on Appendix B can be sent to
Rich or Dan Oliver.
Rich
reported that Joe Malbrough is now the Chair of the RVOC.
Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) – Steve Hartz provided the
report. The AICC met in April and
will meet again in December. NSF is
soliciting STARC proposals for marine technician support for Healy.
Scientific Committee for Ocean Aircraft
Research (SCOAR) – Steve
Hartz reported that SCOAR had a Town Hall meeting in Portland, OR and a regular
meeting in June. Dan Schwartz is SCOAR
Chair.
UNOLS Report – Annette DeSilva provided a UNOLS
report. Her slides are included as
Appendix XXIX http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap29.pdf.
In
2009 the Council established two goals.
One goal was to strengthen
the relationship between UNOLS and the Antarctic Research Programs. As part of this effort, NSF requested
UNOLS assistance in a Polar Research Vessel Science Mission Requirements Refresh
project. Another goal is
to work to Green the Fleet. This would apply to construction as well
as operation of vessels. In 2010 a
new goal was proposed to ÒExplore
Options for Establishment of a UNOLS Speaker Series.Ó
There are a variety of UNOLS
outreach initiatives and resources available to the community. This includes volunteer cruise opportunities, slide packages, posters, brochures, etc. These are available from the UNOLS web
site.
A recent decline in ship time requests has
been observed. In response, UNOLS
will conduct a survey to evaluate the decline in ship
time demand. With
the data collected from this survey we hope to identify any perceived obstacles
that might be hindering the submission of the ship time requests.
A new
UNOLS Standing Committee was formed, the Ocean Observing Science Committee
(OOSC). The
OOSC is charged with providing advice and guidance on decisions and plans from
the science perspective related to NSF observing investments such as OOI.
RVTEC Web Page Update – Annette DeSilva provided an update
on new features of the RVTEC web pages.
Her slides are available as Appendix XXX http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap30.pdf. The new features include:
á
Ship Inspection – ÒBest PracticesÓ
á
RVTEC Video Library
á RVTEC Technical Exchanges/ Discussions
Ship Design/Construction
Updates:
Ocean Class Research Vessel Status – Tim Schnoor reported
that because of the on-going ship design competition for the Ocean Class
vessels, he couldnÕt present much on the status or specifications of the
ships. The vessels will be over 200 feet in length and will be a monohull design.
Discussion:
á David
Fisichella inquired about the status of electronics updates. Tim – They are coming along, but
there is going to be limited resources.
á David
Fisichella – The ships will be base lined with some very nice
equipment. The Sonar systems look
very nice.
á Woody Sutherland suggested that the ships be
built with holes/chests, etc that can be later equipped with instrumentation
and equipment. The Navy will deliver
the ship and put it through sea trials.
The operating institutions will outfit the vessels with science equipment. Woody thought that they would have more
time for this effort. The base instrumentation is similar to what is on the
Navy TAGS vessels. He is concerned
that the WHOI and SIO ships must be the same in terms of the suite of
instrumentation, yet these should will operate in ocean basins that are
different from each other, so shouldnÕt the outfitting be different?
á Dale Chayes amplified this concern. He also suggested that the selection of
the multibeam system should be done as late as
possible in the design/build/outfitting cycle.
á Tim Schnoor
– The Navy is open to suggestions and they will look at getting more
money to do what is needed.
á Dale Chayes suggested that we simply should indicate
the size of the holes, weight, heat load and power that should be provided with
the ship.
Lunch
RVTEC Officer Nominations – Marc Willis introduced this yearÕs RVTEC officer nominees
á
RVTEC Chair – Rich Findley, Dale Chayes,
and David Fisichella
á
Vice Chair – Daryl Swensen and Ben Jokinen
RVTEC Subcommittee Reports:
Post Cruise Assessment Report
(PCAR) Committee –
Dave Fisichella provided the report.
The PCAR Committee met once.
David noted that there are some flaws in the PCAR process and form. As an example, there was a cruise that
lost a $100K package over the side and yet the cruise was ranked it above
average. Dave indicated that he thinks
there needs to be a better way to record the
assessment of cruises.
There was a discussion about the validity and use of the PCARs:
á Bill Fanning – No URI techs fill in the
post cruise assessment. The form
is poorly worded. He feels that
the writing of PCARs is not a very useful process.
á Jim Holik – He finds that the narrative
in the PCAR is most useful.
á Bill Fanning – When things go wrong on
a cruise, the tech is expected to provide an explanation on what went
wrong. This doesnÕt seem to apply
to the science party.
á Alice Doyle – The technicians are
concerned about the science users getting their feedback.
á Ted Coburn – Perhaps the process could
be changed so that the Techs and Captains only complete portions of the PCAR.
á David Fisichella – We have considered
this suggestion in the past. The process also needs to be changed.
á Tim McGovern – From the Marine Tech
perspective, there is worry about retribution. The techs may not see the science PCAR before submitting
their report.
á There was a question about post cruise
debrief interviews. Annette
explained that the DESSC interviews are conducted between the science user,
DESSC member, and NDSF chief scientist.
The interview reports are sanitized (names are removed) before the
reports are summarized publically.
á Steve Hartz – There had been a recommendation
to remove the Tech and Captain PCAR form.
Annette explained that the PCAR Committee retracted the recommendation because
the Council felt that there needed to be a mechanism for Techs and Captains to
report.
á David Fisichella – If you are
interested in working with him on this issue and developing suggestions, see
him at the end of the meeting.
RVTEC Education Subcommittee – Aubri Steele provided the Education Subcommittee report. Her slides are included as Appendix
XXXI http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap31.pdf .
Aubri reported on plans for the Research Vessel Safety Standards –
Appendix A workshops. The training
workshops will be coordinated and led by U. Miami (Rich Findley and Aubri). An initial workshop was conducted on Walton Smith and about eight individuals
participated, all from U. Miami.
á Ben Jokinen – Who is the training
geared for? Aubri – Captain,
crew, marine sup, techs, and science users.
Aubri encouraged everyone to take the Training Survey that is being
coordinated by Alice Doyle. Input
on the types of training of interest is needed.
8th INMARTECH: 26 -
28 January 2011, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand – The 2011 INMARTECH
meeting has been postponed. When
rescheduled, the meeting information will be forwarded to RVTEC.
Suggestions for 2011 RVTEC
Meeting Host Institution – A slide listing the past RVTEC meeting host institutions was presented,
see Appendix
XXXII <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap32.pdf>. LDEO and New Orleans (host LUMCON) were
suggested.
Show & Tell Presentations:
SWAP Update – Toby Martin lead a discussion on SWAP. His presentation is included as Appendix
XXXIII <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/swap2010report/cover.html>. Toby asked the group ÒWhat sort of products do you want out of SWAP?Ó
á Dave Forcucci
– USCG does a lot of ship to ship communications
with Canadian vessels. It would be
good to have a SWAP spec sheet. What
should be expected in terms of performance? Toby – the details are available on the SWAP site.
á Jon Meyer
– There is potential for public domain frequencies in the future, perhaps
in a couple years. SWAP uses the
public domain.
Officer Election Results - Elections were held and the following individuals were selected:
á
RVTEC Chair –David Fisichella
á
Vice Chair – Daryl Swensen
These nominations will be forwarded to the
UNOLS Chair for appointment.
My IEEE/MTS Oceans 2010 Seattle – Toby Martin and Dave Gorman provided
a summary of the IEEE/MTS Ocean 2010 conference that was held in Seattle. Their information is included as Appendix
XXXIV <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap34.pdf>.
A list of some of the presenters and vendors is included in the
slides. They found the conference
very worthwhile. Next yearÕs
meeting will be held in Hawaii. Toby
and Dave encouraged RVTEC to attend these forums.
Vessel Tracker – Annette DeSilva provided the
Show-n-Tell. Her slides are
included as Appendix XXXV <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap35.pdf>.
Annette
explained that it has long been desired by the UNOLS Office to have the
capability to answer the question – ÒWhere are the UNOLS ships now?Ó
(In other words –the geographic location of each ship in near real time). Using navigation position data, we
would like to create a visual display of the world oceans with ship positions. To avoid any added work on the part of
the shipÕs marine techs, we would want automated feeds of lat and long data in
a standard format. One possible
way to accomplish this at relatively low cost is to provide each ship with a
portable vessel tracker box (see slides).
Bill Fanning said that the vessel tracker boxes also offer a good
safety tracking devise, particularly for small boats.
It was pointed out that for most (but not all) UNOLS vessels that
real-time navigation data is available.
There could be ways to collect the data and achieve the goals of this
effort.
Laura Stolp and Dale Chayes offered to assist in this project.
"Sugru:
Hack things better"
– Dave Gorman provided information about Sugru,
which can be used as an adhesive for repairs and other uses. See Appendix XXXVI http://sugru.com/.
Dave passed around packets of the Sugru. It is great for holding things
together, yet it comes apart when you want to separate the parts again.
The latest release of NOAAÕs
Scientific Computer System (SCS) – John Katebini provided the report. He showed a flow chart of the entire SCS system from
meta-data, data collection, to repository. The chart is included as Appendix
XXXVII <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2010/201011rvt/Thursday/201011rvtap37.pdf>. The user can create their own events to
collect the data that they are interested in. It is typically the ET or Tech who collects the data. NOAA
is integrating their system with R2R.
Email is used to transfer data.
Discussion:
á Bill Fanning
– How long will you be using flat files? John – There are not plans to change in the future.
á Sequel Server
Express is only used for data.
á Toby Martin –
Is data going directly into the database? John – The data permanently
logs into the flat files.
á They are using
Windows.net
á John asked that
RVTEC to contact him with any comments or questions.
á Nathaniel
Sanders - What kind of searches/queries are you running? John gave an example. He commented that if you have bad
position data, you could find where itÕs located.
á There are about
18 non-NOAA vessels using the SCS system.
NOAA is not permitted to distribute SCS out of the US for legal reasons
Closing Remarks – Rich Findley provided some closing
remarks. A motion was made and
passed to adjourn the meeting (Chayes/Martin).
Adjourn RVTEC Meeting