Section Three: Looking Ahead

New Technologies

Background/Summary

There are many technologies coming into use by the scientific diving community that are beyond those traditionally used by scientific divers. Many of these new technologies are not new at all, but have a long history of industrial and other diver group usage (e.g., NOAA use of NITROX). When adopting additional technologies into the repertoire of scientific diving, a variety of mechanisms have been used which range from personal discussions to the convening of a workshop (e.g., American Academy of Underwater Sciences' Workshop on Diving Computers) and development of standards for and by the community. The four perspectives concerned with additional technologies and mechanisms to deal with them are:

• The ship operator with overall responsibility for over-the-side operations;
• The scientist with his or her need and desire to accomplish good science;
• The scientist's home institution with its concerns for safety, liability, and reputation; and
• The funding agency which is responsive to community demands and at the same time responsible for (among others): safety, finances, and precedent setting issues.

NOTE: The general term 'diving' is used to indicate scuba or surface supplied diving, but not excursions beneath the surface in either an OMADS or a multi-place submersible.

Control of all hyperbaric exposure by employees of research institutions has traditionally rested with Diving Control Boards. These groups are also responsible for the development of new protocols and standards for new equipment and situations (e.g., diving computers, HELIOX, NITROX, cold water diving, diving tables, multiple tether diving, etc.). Recently two issues of broad concern to the scientific diving community (diving computers and biomechanics of ascents) have been addressed by AAUS workshops.

The specifics of a research dive are not traditionally the concern of the ship operators as long as they feel confident that the planning has been sufficient to result in a safe and successful operation. The establishment of campus diving administrations in the form of Diving Control Boards as documented by AAUS standards has been well accepted and successful. The development of rules, standards, and protocols for new personal equipment will likely follow the traditional model of: first, an increase in interest by the research diving community for use of the technology; then the development of a community standard.

When it comes to a broad range of issues related to diving, there are other groups and societies that are, and should continue to be, involved. For example, the issue of the frequency and content of a diving medical exam is more clearly the purview of a group such as the UHMS than AAUS, MTS, or UNOLS.

The issues of availability, as well as protocols and standards development, are not as clearly delineated when it comes to the use of One-Man Atmospheric Diving Systems (OMADS) and Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs). Part of this results from these new technologies not yet attaining the level of use that, for example, scientific diving has reached. There was a time in the history of scientific scuba diving when it was unregulated and a pioneer activity. As it became more regularly utilized, recognition of the need for standards and guidelines brought about their development.

If a higher level of use and commonality of new technologies is foreseen, then protocols and standards need to be developed. Again, using the research diving analogy, it makes sense that the user community be self-regulating and codify generally accepted practice before often unworkable and occasionally dangerous rules and regulations are imposed from the outside. To deal with the policy and technical issues of availability, technical complexity, and training and safety of all research submersibles, manned and unmanned, the establishment of a UNOLS committee, the In Situ Science Committee (ISSC), is suggested. The ISSC should, like the AAUS Standards Committee, be accepted by the community and the agencies.

The issues related to guideline development for the use of underwater vehicles can be divided into a number of sometimes overlapping areas:

• availability in terms of: scientific need, user mechanisms, resources, and vehicles;
• the technical complexity of operating and maintaining the vehicle (including over-the-side considerations); and
• the training and safety of using a scientist as pilot.

Availability:

• Scientific need: There are a number of reports (e.g., The Jennings Report [14] by NOAA, the Low-Cost ROV and Submersible Workshop Report [15] by the University of Rhode Island's Center for Ocean Management Studies, and the UNOLS Submersible Science Study [16]) that point out that portions of the science community have a requirement for increased availability of undersea vehicles. According to the UNOLS Submersible Science Study (S3):
  The principal problem confronting the (oceanographic) research community is the lack of access to submersible systems. These will be primary tools of the next generation of oceanographers; yet while the technology continues to evolve, the development of research methodologies for their utilization is lagging far behind.

This comment reflects the growing recognition of the importance of these new tools to the advancement of oceanography.

• User mechanisms, resources and vehicles: The use of OMADS with federal funding is an important issue that requires some attention. There is no consistent policy across the federal government for the use of OMADS. NOAA does not allow even the consideration of OMADS as a tool for use with their funding while NSF has funded OMADS demonstration dives as well as successful field programs and NPS/DOI (National Park Service, Department of the Interior) has encouraged OMADS use as the most appropriate tool for specific scientific projects. There appears to be a connection between the lack of consistent federal policies, the lack of federally recognized operational standards and the federal reluctance to make these new technologies readily available to the science community. The reports cited above state, unequivocally, that the demand for the use of manned and unmanned submersible systems will continue to grow. A standardized mechanism must be developed to assure safety and efficiency as well as provide federal consistency in available fiscal resources for the use of manned and unmanned submersibles for scientific purposes. The mechanism could utilize either local (modeled on that of a Diving Control Board) or national (like the AAUS Standards Committee) models to accomplish this goal depending on vehicle complexity and cost.
• Another aspect of this dilemma is that of cost. Who is going to pay? This is a valid concern. There are those in the community who feel that the use of any submersible should be like the use of ALVIN or regular shiptime. That is, requests for submersible support should be handled through regular federal facilities funding channels. 'There are others who feel that the science budget should directly fund the use of these new technologies. There is a mechanism for moving new marine technologies from the drawing board through the proving stage. However, the mechanism does not follow through by bringing those proven new technologies on-line. The agencies need to complete the loop that they have established by developing a method to fund the use of proven new technologies. This funding mechanism must be responsive to the demands of the scientific user community.

Technical Complexity

On the technical side, the community has recently relied on the turn-key, leased vehicle approach which includes the owner/operator's personnel, protocols, and practices. The variety and type of vehicles that are available continues to grow. It would be useful to the scientific community to have a mechanism to evaluate and utilize new capabilities as they come on line. The lease method has worked well and brings with it the technical component important to successful operations. For ROVs, the community has either utilized operator-developed protocols, developed their own documented procedures or relied on the operating procedures developed by MTS[17]. Even with a lease approach, there have been irregularities in the availability of vehicles for use by the scientific community, with much of the irregularity originating from the availability issues discussed above.

Training Scientists as Pilots

The third issue of the scientist as pilot lends itself to community action through the development of standards of training, safety, and practice much like the self-developed and self-imposed diver training standards of the AAUS. Although AAUS is not the best organization for the development of these protocols, its mechanisms are a good model to follow. The actual development of standards could be left to interested university boards (in cooperation with vehicle operators) and submitted to the oversight group or be prepared by the ISSC itself.

Concluding Comments

The workshop participants expect underwater vehicle use (especially OMADS) to become widespread. This will require the codification of a set of national minimum operating standards. As a result, it is crucial that the ISSC be made up of people with expertise and interest in the use of manned and unmanned underwater technologies. The ISSC's authority and usefulness depends upon the level of expertise of its members. The user community will closely watch the appointment process and will take the ISSC and its recommendations seriously only if they feel it both representative and knowledgeable.

The development of guidelines and related items by a community-accepted organization would serve to: reduce the anxiety of the ship operators related to the on-board and over-the-side use of all underwater vehicles; address concerns of the funding agencies related to safety procedures and liability; and be a first step in the development of a mechanism to promote up-dates and better communication on the availability, use, and protocols related to new technologies. There are many concerns that could be addressed by the ISSC that would be beneficial. They include but are not limited to: insurance, safety, pilot training, shipboard handling, institutional operations, ship-of-opportunity transfers, leasing mechanisms, and regular inter-group communications and up-dates (e.g., meetings between UNOLS, RVOC, new committees, agencies, scientists, AAUS, etc.)

• Considering the above discussion, the following recommendations resulted:
• AAUS should continue to be involved in non-submersible scientific diver issues;
• Other societies should be encouraged to remain involved in issues of their expertise;
• Representatives of the various groups should meet together periodically to facilitate communication; and

UNOLS should establish a standing committee called the In Situ Science Committee (ISSC) to:

• assess the current development, availability, and appropriate applications of 'new' technologies for in situ science;
• advise NSF, ONR, NOAA, and other federal agencies on in situ technologies, their evolution and application;
• foster the incorporation of these new technologies into federally funded marine research;
• establish consistent operational standards for new technology equipment for use by the science community;
• establish guidelines and provide oversight for the contracting, safety, and insurance for leased, in situ, new-technology equipment (foreign and domestic);
• coordinate and promote the efficient joint scheduling of submersibles or other in situ equipment on an inter-agency basis; and
• promote the establishment of a shared-use equipment pool and tool inventory.

Emphasis for the ISSC would be on current submersible technologies as well as new technology issues that involve substantial departure from current practice in oceanographic research with respect to operations, safety procedures, or personnel training. Examples would include, but are not limited to: submersibles, OMADS, ROVs, AUVs, and combinations. It would not involve itself in scientific proposal review but rather could offer technical and operational review in the form of assessments and adequacy of the tools and the procedures proposed.

Issues for consideration by this committee could arise from within the committee or from sources outside it, including:

• UNOLS;
• federal funding agencies;
• other government bodies;
• the academic oceanographic science community;
• marine technology industry;
• international marine scientists and institutions; and
• other interested and appropriate parties.

Issues which this committee deems inappropriate for its consideration could be referred to other expert bodies (e.g., UHMS for medical concerns, AAUS for scuba diving issues, and MTS for engineering questions, etc.).

Committee Composition

This committee should broadly represent the marine community including participants from the following groups:

• research vessel operators;
• commercial marine technology community;
• academic oceanographic community;
• Diving Safety Officers from UNOLS institutions; and
• as observers: representatives of the funding and regulatory agencies.

Committee Structure

In the UNOLS structure the ISSC would occupy a position comparable to the RVOC and the Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC). Since the charge to the ISSC encompasses all in situ technologies, it would seem logical that the ARC would eventually become a permanent subcommittee within it.

NOTE: The Fleet Improvement Committee is a committee of UNOLS. It works to assure the continuing excellence of the UNOLS fleet, to improve the capability and effectiveness of individual ships and to assure that the number, mix and overall capabilities of ships in the UNOLS fleet match the science requirements of academic oceanography in the U.S. It is composed of a Chair and seven members who are experienced in ship operations and are from institutions which are either operators or users of UNOLS research vessels.

There are two mechanisms that could be employed in the structuring of this committee (apart from the ARC component). One is to appoint a large ISSC committee whose members could be divided into functional groups to address identified problems. The second mechanism would create a smaller standing ISSC which could convene ad hoc panels of outside experts to deal with specific issues

Future Needs and Projects

One of the primary reasons for this workshop was to increase communication between the various parties involved in a research diving cruise. Vessel operators rarely know of the existence of research diving safety programs on any campus but their own and, due to a lack of first hand experience, lack confidence in any research diving safety programs other than the one on their campus. This general feeling of discomfort is exacerbated by the difficulties (and occasionally confusion) surrounding the qualification of research divers whose home institutions do not have a research diving safety program.

To help the implementation of workshop recommendations, insure the orderly evolution of future standards and guidelines, meet future needs of the research diving community and academic fleet, and obviate the need to conduct a workshop similar to this one in the near future, formal links between the major organizations concerned with shipboard research diving need to be forged.

The lack of a formal structure linking UNOLS/RVOC, AAUS and NOAA concerns for research diving safety has been an impediment to routine progress on issues of research diving safety within the academic fleet. This lack of inter-relationship and coordination between UNOLS/RVOC and AAUS is perplexing since a substantial congruity of membership exists between UNOLS/RVOC and AAUS, and there is a high level of AAUS activity within the UNOLS/RVOC community and a significant commonality of interest.

This commonality of interest is evidenced by extensive informal links such as AAUS members contributing sections to and reviewing sections of the UNOLS Shipboard Safety Standards and the RVOC Safety Training Manual; AAUS issuing and periodically revising the diving standards under which research divers at UNOLS institutions are trained and certified and which are used for the administration of research diving programs at UNOLS institutions; AAUS providing the only framework for inter-institutional reciprocity and acceptance of research diver certification within the UNOLS community.

AAUS has been the single national body representing the United States' research diving community for more than a decade. AAUS has represented research diving community interests before Presidential Commissions and Federal agencies; provided the only significant national forum for the exchange of information dedicated to underwater science accomplished by research divers; convened panels of experts to study and supply guidance on the use of new diving technologies; provided an interface with the international research diving community; compiled statistics concerning research diving activities, accidents and exposures; and provided a forum for the Diving Safety Officers and institutional representatives to meet and discuss items of common interest.

UNOLS/RVOC and AAUS will continue to work on behalf of their memberships, within the scope of their mission and available resources. The development of a structure integrating research diving safety concerns will add to research diver safety and expand the capabilities of the research diving community by establishing consistency and reducing duplication of effort. Examples of benefits include:

• Making AAUS more available (and directly responsive) to UNOLS/RVOC for consultation and advice on questions concerning or affecting research diving.
• Having AAUS provide, at UNOLS request, an external review function for diving cruises;
• Providing a structure for peer review of science proposals involving research diving which would include the best available review of diving operational safety and feasibility considerations.

Recommendations

A) Formal links between UNOLS/RVOC should include (but not be limited to):

• 1) Requiring Organizational Membership in AAUS of UNOLS institutions that:
  a) Operate vessels carrying research diving cruises, and
  b) Who have research divers participating in such cruises;
• 2) Reciprocal representation at each others meetings;
• 3) Identified sections in each others' newsletters; and
• 4) Occasional joint meetings.

B) Supplying technical links (as part implementation of the S3 Report), through UNOLS setting up a Diving Safety Officers sub-committee under the proposed In Situ Science Sub-Committee (ISSC); and the AAUS Board of Directors setting up a UNOLS Diving Officer Committee within the AAUS.

C) Research diver safety and efficiency would be enhanced if in addition to creating UNOLS/RVOC links with AAUS, similar links, at the operational research diving level, were created with NOAA. Academic diving and NOAA diving programs should aggressively pursue a reciprocity agreement covering research diver certification. This link could provide a model for future cooperation on the safety, efficiency, and consistent utilization of new technologies.

Endnotes

14 'New Directions for NOAA's Undersea Research Program,' Jennings, F. D.: 1986, Texas A & M University, College Station TX.

15 'The Marine Research Community and Low Cost ROVs and Submersibles: Needs and Prospects,' Hanson L. C.: 1986, Center for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

16 'Submersible Science Study,' Robison, B. (Chairman), 1990: University National Oceanographic Laboratory System, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

17 'Operating Guidelines for Remotely Operated Vehicles,' Wernli, R.L. (Chairman): 1984, Marine Technology Society, San Diego Section, San Diego, CA.