I.    Meeting Agenda
II.   Meeting Participant List
III.  NSF Report
IV.  NAVO Viewgraphs
V.  UNOLS Chair Report
VI.  UNOLS Report
VII.  SeaNet Status and Tutorial
VIII.  STRATOS Presentation
IX. ONRUST Replacement Plans
X. WECOMA Underway System
XI.  Steve Poulos e-mail
XII.  RVTEC Training website
XIII. NOAA Shipboard Scientific Computer System (SCS)
XIV. Action Items

Wednesday, October 18, 2000 

Meeting Called to Order - The 2000 annual meeting of the Research Vessel Technical Enhancement Committee (RVTEC) was called to order on October 18th at 9:09 AM in the Monell Auditorium of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) of Columbia University.  The agenda (Appendix I) for the meeting was followed in the order as reported by these minutes.  RVTEC Chair John Freitag (URI) had participants in the auditorium introduce themselves (see Appendix II, list of participants).

LDEO Interim Director John Mutter gave a welcome address.  He invited RVTEC participants to take a look around LDEO.  This is the best time of the year, he said (and indeed, after the first day, the weather was splendid).

At 0913 John Freitag outlined the differences between this year's meeting and previous meetings: first the meeting is being held in an auditorium with speakers at a podium on stage, compared with the usual round (or square) table format.  He felt that this would work out well but wanted feedback.  Also different from previous years is the “breakout sessions” planned for the second day of the meeting.  Groups would go to appropriate locations at LDEO where sessions on wire terminations, salinometers, SeaNet, NetCDF, and other demonstrations would take place.  Everyone at the meeting would have the opportunity to attend all breakout sessions.

Dale Chayes then went over some housekeeping notes on lunch and dinner.  Dale noted that interest in Bruce Huber’s (LDEO) salinometer session was high (22 signed up).  Interest in other sessions was high, except for NetCDF.

The Minutes of the 1999 RVTEC meeting were then introduced for acceptance.  No hard copy had been provided this year; the minutes are posted on the UNOLS/RVTEC web site and can be downloaded as a PDF file.  A motion to accept the minutes was seconded and carried.  Vice Chair, Tony Amos, who’s duty includes preparation of each year’s minutes asked if there was any parliamentary reason why the minutes should not be posted on the web long before the next meeting, perhaps posted on a URL site that is not available to the public, and solicit comments from the RVTEC membership.  This might speed up the process of publishing the minutes as procrastination occasionally rears its head when the preparer knows that the next meeting is a year away.  John Freitag thought there would not be any procedural objection to this and Amos will try to have minutes done in a reasonably short time.

The Agency Reports were given.

National Science Foundation (NSF) - Alexander (Sandy) Shor (NSF) outlined the FY 2001 OCFS Priorities.  The NSF viewgraphs are provided as Appendix III (Part A and Part B).  Fiscal Year 2001 started two weeks ago and the actual program budgets are not yet resolved.  NSF received the largest increase in its history, 13.6% above FY2000.  It is not yet clear what the budget will be for UNOLS ship operations, technical support and instrumentation.  Identified in the budget was enhancement of operations and technical services for the UNOLS fleet. The NSF budget request for FY2001 was very ambitious with a 17.3% increase overall from FY2000, an increase of 22.2% for Ocean Sciences, and 27.3 % for Facilities.  NSF hopes to double its budget in five years.

Sandy continued by reporting agency personnel changes: Margaret Leinen has joined as Assistant Director of Geosciences.  Michael Purdy resigned as Division Director to become LDEO Director (effective December 1, 2000).  Michael Reeve replaced Don Heinrichs as head of the Facilities Section.  The Research Section Head search is now nearly complete.  A new section has been created: MG&G + ODP.  This is expected to have little effect on ship operations.  Linda Goad, of the University of Michigan, is coming into the Ship Operations group to work with Dolly Dieter.

On the 2001 Ship Schedules, there is an overall increase in demand over 2000.  Scheduling operations is especially difficult for large and intermediate ships in the Pacific, but on the positive side, an increase in ship use despite flat budgets, has occurred.  Sandy reported some “Coming Attractions.”  There will be a Robotic Drill Workshop on November 3 - 4, 2000.  Recent tests of the RDI 75 kHz phased array ADCP have taken place and are now becoming available.  The 1999 Seismic Reflection Workshop report is now available.

Other things going on include the development of a Federal Interagency Policy for long-term management of the National Academic Research Fleet with its blueprint of fleet replacement in the next 20 or more years.  The plan is being drafted by the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee and is expected by mid-2001.  Sandy emphasized that the Quality of Service & Training issues need to be highlighted as identified in the Academic Fleet Review (AFR).  Important elements of this include adequate technician training and defining levels of service that users can expect.

Office of Naval Research (ONR) – Tim Pfeiffer reported that Navy support for fleet operation is approximately $17.5M.  FLIP has a busy schedule of over 100 days.  There has been a $1.7 - $1.8 M investment in instrumentation, mainly through the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP).  This year, requests for multibeam systems crowded out smaller requests.  The award results are expected in February or March 2001.  International Safety Measures (ISM) will be mandatory for ships over 500 tons, starting in July 2002.  The issue of ISM compliance will be a focus of next week’s meeting of Research Vessel Operators Committee (RVOC).  There are unanswered questions on how far ISM will go into scientific operations on a ship. Winch and crane operations are obvious candidates.  In ship news, The AGOR 26 SWATH vessel is in construction.  Delivery will be delayed by four months.  Lastly, in personnel news, Pat Dennis has left ONR for a position as Chief of Staff at the Consortium of Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE).

Sandy Shor reported that funding for NSF’s Major Research Instrumentation program has been increased by 50%.  This should have an effect on acquisition of big (expensive) equipment.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – No NOAA report was provided.

Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) - The NAVO report was given by Jerry Gathof.  His viewgraphs are provided asAppendix IV.  NAVO plans to bring real-time data from their fleet of eight research vessels to shore.  Jerry reported on the use of UNOLS ships for NAVO work.  Since the start of the NAVO/UNOLS partnership, there have been a total of 1250 UNOLS ship days using 15 ships.  Jerry listed the accomplishments and beneficiaries of these operations.  CY2000 NAVO activities include 205 ship days for work in the Gulf of Mexico, Narragansett Bay, South Florida, Onslow Bay, and off California.  Plans for CY2001 include 310 ship days with operations off Florida, California, Hawaii, Onslow Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

United States Coast Guard (USCG) - The Coast Guard report was given by John Berkson, who expressed appreciation to UNOLS for allowing Coast Guard technicians to cross-train on UNOLS vessels.  He also thanked UNOLS for inviting the Coast Guard to participate in RVTEC meetings.  This is important because of rollover (the limited tours of duty that many Coast Guard personnel do on their vessels).  USCGC POLAR STAR completed the Arctic West cruise and underwent repairs to its center shaft.  POLAR SEA has also undergone considerable repairs.  USCGC HEALY completed the warm water and ice trials this summer with considerable assistance from UNOLS and RVTEC.  The vessel is now undergoing warranty repairs in Seattle. A HEALY ice trials video was shown at the Marine Technology Society Oceans 2000 Conference.  The video is available for viewing at this meeting.

The meeting took a break at 1030 and reconvened at 1057. 

UNOLS Report - The report on UNOLS activities was given by Bob Knox, UNOLS Chair.  His viewgraphs are included asAppendix V.  Bob pointed that many of the important issues facing UNOLS (ISM, HEALY support, Quality of Service, fleet renewal, etc) are on the agenda to be addressed during the RVTEC meeting.  Therefore, his report will focus on ship scheduling issues.  UNOLS experienced several years of underutilization, especially of the large ships.  This resulted in ship lay-ups and pressure toward retirements.  ONR/Navy concerns about the underutilization lead to additional new NAVY work in the form of NAVO and LWAD cruises.  Now as we plan operations for 2001 we are facing over-bookings of the ships.   Some of the large programs could not be accommodated.  This was due to multiple constraints including ROV logistics, weather windows, and operations in remote areas.  In 2002 the new Hawaii SWATH vessel, AGOR 26 comes on line and may help to alleviate the demand on the large ships.  Within UNOLS the scheduling process is complex and depends on the ability to all parties to communications problems, evaluate tradeoffs to PI’s and seek feedback.  Criteria should be established for prioritizing field programs.  This effort must include all parties, agencies, users and operators.  UNOLS will continue to monitor fleet utilization to determine if the situation in 2001 becomes a trend.  Bob asked that everyone recognize the schedulers, PIs and agency representatives in their efforts to establish the best ship schedules feasible.

Mike Prince continued the UNOLS report with Committee News and information on how UNOLS is evaluating approaches for improving Quality of Service.  His viewgraphs are included as Appendix VI.  The UNOLS Office is now located at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.  The University of Rhode Island (URI) was the UNOLS office for the past nine years.  The Office grant is for three years and they hope to be able to renew that once or twice.  The new contract started on May 1, 2000.  Annette DeSilva is still Assistant Executive Secretary of UNOLS and will continue to assist with RVTEC, FIC and DESSC activities.  The UNOLS has registered its domain name and its website is located on a commercial server <http://www.unols.org>.  UNOLS will use the Internet to improve communications.  Mike reported that the other staff members of the Office include Kate Sawyers, Administrative Assistant, and students Sara Anderson and Laura Dippold.  The students are serving as our webmasters.  The RVTEC web site is still (and will continue to be) maintained by Tom Wilson.

Research Vessel Operators’ Committee (RVOC) – Activities of the RVOC include establishment of laboratory van specifications.  They are also trying to establish standards for safe maximum working loads on wires.  This is a joint project with RVTEC.  The next RVOC meeting will be held next week at Oregon State University.  ISM will be a big topic.  Other issues that will be addressed include crew retention, training and quality.

Arctic Icebreaking Coordinating Committee (AICC) - HEALY is currently out of the water in Seattle for warranty repair work.  The yard period will be followed by another short sea trial period.  The sea trials will be conducted on certain pieces of equipment that were identified in the summer ice trials.  Some members from RVTEC contributed their time and expertise in assisting with the sea trials.  There will be continued training for Coast Guard Marine Science Technicians (MSTs).  In addition to HEALY, AICC is also helping to coordinate the Science of Opportunity programs for the other Polar Class vessels.

Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) – The FIC has been focusing on fleet renewal efforts.  They have been trying to spread the word throughout the community about the immediate need for fleet planning.  They have submitted an article to EOS alerting the community about the need for fleet renewal.

Quality of Service (QOS) - Mike Prince reported on what has stimulated the recent initiative by the UNOLS Council to investigate QOS. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix VI.  In 1998/99, a comprehensive external review of US Academic Research Fleet was carried out as part of the NSF Ship Operations Program re-authorization, the “Academic Fleet Review (AFR).” The report is posted on NSF's website at <http://www.geo.nsf.gov/oce/pubs/fleetrev.html>.  The findings included:

· US scientists got excellent access to the sea via UNOLS

There were problems, however:

· Complexity of cruise scheduling.

· Lack of consistency between institutions with shared-use equipment/services.

· A concern that equipment is becoming more sophisticated and expensive and that its acquisition, use, and maintenance is not handled in a uniform manner.

· Concern among users that they have little recourse for action should equipment or services not be up to par.

The AFR recommendation states that improvement is needed in scheduling, support of non-operator researchers, quality of support/maintenance of installed, and pool equipment.  This need for a continuous improvement and formal quality control “needs to be infused into the entire UNOLS and operator system.”  The observations are summarized in the final recommendations of the 1999 AFR.  Four years from now the Ocean Science’s Facilities Section must show what action has been taken - hence the Quality of Service initiative.  Also, this is what UNOLS does, and why it exists: to provide the highest possible facilities for marine research and education. New technology introduction is needed, but they are not talking about a new program but rather to improve the existing one. The present system of quality control and improvement within UNOLS is based on:

· UNOLS committees and the Council.  Mike went on to describe the mandates of each of the above (see Appendix VI), noting that it will be RVTEC where the large part of the QOS will be addressed.

· Post cruise assessment forms are available on old-style paper, or online at <http://www.gso.uri.edu/unols/pcarform.htm>.   Presently, the submission rate is 60%.  Very few reports contain significant constructive criticism.  Also, the assessment form for captains and technicians are (generally) only filled in by captains.  Input is needed from all!

· The ship inspection program has lapsed but is not dead.  A contract for re-implementing the program is needed, as is input from technicians and operators on how to structure the program.

· Ship operations committees at some (but not all) operating institutions are a good vehicle for user input and the recommended vehicle for planning improvements and replacements.

· Scientist-administrators/advisers at operating institutions are vital for communication with users.

· Feedback by users to ship operators and technician groups (us).

Mike reviewed the suggestions from the report that were directly applicable to RVTEC under “What do we need to do more?”

· Set a uniform plan for shared use equipment and technical support.

· Set standards for base level equipment.

· Increase reliability, quality of data and performance for shared use equipment including fleet wide quality, a modern quality control system, education, and evaluation of performance with budget support for implementing these features.

· Increase shared use of specialized systems that have wide application - there would then be less need for PIs to request purchasing such equipment in their proposals and eliminate duplications as well as ensuring uniform reliability and data quality for all users.

· Take advantage of slack time to do equipment overhaul, upgrade, repair and replacement.

· A UNOLS wide action to improve feedback.  Current forms have been created by RVOC.  Users will then feel that their concerns are being addressed.

Finally, Mike asked, “What’s next?”

· To identify a formal quality improvement or quality control program fleet-wide.

· ISM is a safety and pollution control program that will be mandatory for some and probably the norm for all.

· ISO 9002 is a quality assurance program, better suited for individual operators rather than UNOLS as a whole.

· There are other programs, such as Six Sigma, a GE program, or the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.  Criteria of this Department of Commerce award, oriented towards business and education, could be used as a guide rather than actually competing for the award.

NSF’s Innovation and Organizational Change Program manager told the Council that the complexity of UNOLS makes it a challenge to develop a formal program because of the many institutions and agencies involved.  However, Program researchers may be available to advise us.

Mike finished by appealing for our (the technicians of RVTEC) help in improving quality of service at our own institutions, and participating in surveys, committees, etc. UNOLS as an organization must ensure that Quality of Service to Marine Science is the “prevailing culture.”

A question was asked about mandatory nature of the post cruise assessment form.  NSF is not going to make it mandatory.  Mike is going to look at what they get out of reports now and review the process.  Dale asked a question on ISM safety regulations. Mike told of scientists in the UK being required to take a standard safety course or they don’t go on cruise.  Sandy Shor said that NSF is taking these issues seriously and will contribute funding for improvement programs.

Break for lunch at 1211: Meeting reconvened at 1327 

USCGC HEALY Science Systems Testing - John Freitag reported on the AICC HEALY science testing.  Testing of the new USCG Icebreaker HEALY was conducted in the model of a science cruise with a chief scientist to emulate an actual cruise and to involve as many people as would be on such a cruise.  The Warm Water Trials in February 2000 tested Swath mapping, ADCP, and a “first approximation” of the coring system.  There were many problems, particularly with the multibeam system.  The multibeam problems will be addressed in post-shakedown availability.  Science ice trials were held over the summer and operations included coring, towing, CTD, ADCP, and swath mapping, as well as underway data acquisition and flow-through sea water systems.  Reports are now available on CD-ROM and additional copies can be made. A lot of good comments/feedback were made available to USCG.  On the basis of these results, many warranty questions arose, some structural.  In closing, John commented that he thinks HEALY will be well equipped to start science operations next year.
 

SeaNet Update - Dale put off demonstration of high-speed data transfer because it was to be set up outside on picnic table in rain.  He next gave the report on Extending the Internet to the Oceanographic Fleet (SeaNet).  His viewgraphs are provided as Appendix VII.  The SeaNet Partners are WHOI (Andy Maffei, Steve Lerner, Scott McCue, and Cindy Sellers), LDEO (Dale Chayes and Richard Perry), and Geo-Prose (Ellen Kappel).  SeaNet is now on six vessels.  It is funded at reduced levels for at least one year.  Near real-time ship position status data are available at  <http://www.seanet.int/>.  Ships have transferred about one gigabyte of data so far.  Examples of use are email, shoreside website maintenance, video, satellite imagery, large file transfer, and ship/shore collaboration by scientists and data analysis.  Some recent changes: SeaNet Operations Center is now at WHOI, with LDEO as a backup.  They have shifted billing responsibilities from OMNET back to the operators.  However, estimated billing with estimated breakdowns of science use is available both on the ship and via <http://www.seanet.int>.  It is desirable to have 24-hour support service, but funding support is not available.  Operation hours are now 0900-1700 EST.  Operators will have to pick up more of the install/maintenance, travel and SATCOM equipment costs.  Dale said that three more vessels would be equipped for Sea-Net and wondered if anyone at the meeting was interested.  New generation hardware will be used for future installations (smaller, PC Notebook-based).  The next software release will support e-mail. An education effort is underway so scientists understand SeaNet’s capabilities and use it even more.  At the present time, there are no venders that will supply necessary billing and security features.

Question: Will there be a higher charge for faster data transfer rates?
Answer:  You Bet!
Question:  When will the software be available?
Answer: Don’t know at this time.

Sandy Shor commented that three new ship SeaNet systems are not the limit.  They are prepared to add more systems to the fleet if there is interest.

Report on International Ship Management (ISM) Code Issues and Discussion –Bill Martin (UW) and Paul Ljunggren (LDEO) provided a report on ISM.  Bill gave the report.  He learned at the INMARTECH 2000 meeting that Southampton, UK did not require their technicians to be ISM certified but did require their taking their own Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping (STCW) Class.  They did not take fire fighting but did do a 2 ½ -day event that included in-water exercises with wet suits and first aid classes.  The University of Washington will require their technicians to comply with their standard manual.  The ISM compliance organization will do a preliminary review of the draft ICM procedures six months prior to the scheduled compliance date.  They will come back to certify the procedures.

There was a great deal of discussion amongst the RVTEC meeting participants.

Question:  Do operators using (for example) Jason, Prod Drills, or ROPOS need to be certified?

Answer: ISM is requiring that any new piece of equipment have an ISM procedure (document) in place addressing safety issues involved with the operation.   The result may be a one-cruise document. There has to be a written procedure for deploying any equipment over the side!

Question: Who has the responsibility for formulating procedures?

Answer: The bottom line is that ISM is “A huge burden.”  Potential scientists are sent out cruise planning forms six months ahead of time.  These are all the things we do anyway but don’t write down.  ISM will require that plans be recorded.

There followed discussion about different methods of, say launching a CTD.  There ensued a lively discussion.  Bill will be happy to go over this with anyone.  A hypothetical question was asked about the possible 95 steps needed to do a CTD cast.

Question: Would an inspector then expect all other CTD operations to use the same steps?  What about provisions for doing things differently on the fly?

Answer: Bill replied that you could do this.  They don’t want to prevent you from doing things.  Their focus is on safety.

You just will have to revise your procedures. There needs to be duplicate documents on the ship and on the shore.  An inspector may bring out the shore-based version. Who signs off on the procedure, the ship's master or shore-side management?

Tim Pfeiffer asked if there has been any collaboration with other operators.  It seems as if the science procedures need to be standardized to some extent, especially since the scientists will go from ship to ship.  It was indicated that there would likely be a template developed for various common systems.  The goal will also be to keep the procedures as simple as possible.

Mike Prince pointed out that RVOC has had ABS representatives at their meeting to discuss ISM requirements.

Question: Have any vendors been involved in the process?

Answer: Bill indicated that they have not been involved with individual vendors.  They look at the equipment.  Bill said he would be happy to share the status with the rest of RVTEC.  They plan to have it up on the web.  This will allow the science community to view it.

Question: Sandy asked, “Is the science community aware of this issue?”

Answer: He mused that the answer is basically “No.”

ADCP Update on Phased Array ADCP Systems - John Freitag then recapped history of phased array ADCP.  This is in response to criticisms of old the broadband ADCPs.  There are two phased array systems made by RDI.

· 38kHz, 900mm, 980 elements. This originally used time delay beam formers, then converted to phase shift beam former.

· 75kHz, (fits in the same well as narrow band 150kHz system).

There have been two studies on phased array ADCPs, one by Eric Firing (U.Hawaii) using a Japanese ship.  He was enthusiastic about the results.  Frank Barr of WHOI using a 75kHz unit supplied by RDI did another study.  He tested it on ATLANTIS in the summer.  He was also enthusiastic.  Another test will be done by URI on ENDEAVOR (Jules Hummon is leading the effort) next year.   John showed profile examples and declared that it looks like phased array is “the thing of the future.”

The meeting took a break at 1510 and reconvened at 1540 

Report from MATE - There was no report from the Marine Advanced Technology Education (MATE) center, but Mike commented that they’re happy with their intern program with UNOLS and wish to continue it.  WHOI may hire some of their graduates.  Sandy said that they have start-up funding for one more year.

Base levels of Technician/Instrumentation UNOLS support - Sandy Shor acted as moderator.

Dolly Dieter suggested that RVTEC define some technical service standards.  The ship inspection program can use these standards.

Question: Does RVTEC have standards of service?

Answer:  No.

Question: Is RVTEC interested in starting to define some levels of service?

Answer: Considerable discussion followed.

Marc Willis has found a change in expectations of what they are to provide in terms of technical support.  For GLOBEC North Pacific program on WECOMA, they had a lot of equipment requirements (MOCNESS, towed SONAR, CTD, SeaSoar, underway, etc.).   But, he only was to provide one technician.  This was an “intolerable situation.” for one technician to provide 24 hours of assistance, seven days a week.   He typically sent four on a cruise, and at no time was there less than two.  It is the same situation on BLUE HERON: one technician providing 24 hours of service.  Obviously this cannot work so others must do some of this work.  A question was raised on what is the liability when the technician is responsible for being available at all times.  Who gets the blame [if something goes wrong]?  Bob Knox brought up the safety issue with this scenario.  It was commented that in the past the scientific party ran the equipment and the technicians maintained it.  Someone made a comment about “The good old days.”  Mike Prince said that there is a whole lot of connectivity between science and the technicians.  Chris Riffe commented that there is also a problem of equipment getting damaged when you need to train other people to use their equipment.

Sandy Shor shared his opinion that the technician should supervise, but not operate the equipment.  There may be equipment a scientist has not seen before.  There is the expectation that a technician should be present for, say dangerous operations at night.  Tony Amos commented that “in the old days” it was often the scientist that developed and built the equipment he used at sea, but now such gear has become more commonplace, reliable and is made commercially.  Also, at times there are graduate students doing nothing on the ship, letting the technician do their sampling for them. Changing expectations have enabled scientists to “not need to even go to sea.”  Robert Walker (FIO) commented that they do not have a shipboard technician.  It becomes the responsibility of the students and professors to provide the technical support.  Rob indicated that there is no funding to support the shipboard technician.  He trains the people who will go out to sea.  This isn’t to say that things don’t get broken often.  He made the comment, “Why let such situations exist?”    Bob Knox said that we are in an era now where we must agree upon what will succeed at sea prior to the cruise.  The scientists need to know what will be supplied when they prepare their ship-time requests.  Rich Findley said that it was getting to the point where scientists want almost instant analysis of data - e.g. ADCP.  They want the data processed. A comment was made that scientists also want to leave equipment on at all times yet they cannot possibly analyze the data for lack of funding.

Barrie Walden commented that there is the fact of the ever-increasing complexity of equipment while there is no increase in technician support.  An opposing point of view was expressed that in fact, instruments like the CTD are now easier to use.  One potential way to improve the situation is to have more shared use technicians.  Sandy gave an example of R/V EWING using a CTD for first time (EWING is largely a dedicated seismic vessel).  This took the efforts of Oregon State University (OSU) and the University of Miami, etc. to do this.

Woody explained that the new policy is not working.  In the past the PIs would propose exactly what they needed.  Now they don’t tell the operator up front.  The users often know that SIO has “free” equipment, so they want to use everything.  They don’t tell the operators this in advance.  SIO is expected to provide the services.  John Diebold (LDEO) commented that it would help if the technical support groups could see the science proposals in advance to know what the PI intended to do.  This gets back to the question of what is expected.  Woody wants to know when “no” is the appropriate answer.   Tom Wilson sees two different things under discussion - 1) making sure equipment is available, and 2) wanting technicians to run the equipment as well.  Scientists are out there to get as much as they can out of system.  Rich Findley has a check-off form asking what equipment the PI’s want to use.  They are required to submit the form by a specified date.  They also need to indicate the number of people they are bringing.  The operator will question the number of people if it looks too small to accommodate all of the equipment requested.

Sandy thinks PIs are hesitant to ask NSF for technician support.  He does not fund technicians to be operators or watchstanders.  However, it is important to provide as much support as possible to the science program.  He would love to see some standards provided by the RVTEC group.  Mike suggested that they include the science community.  Sandy would like a small group of the technicians to take the first stab at this.  It was pointed out that the funding for science programs is strapped also, limited in supporting additional technicians or an adequate number of scientists to complete program.  John indicated that the committee should be made up of small, intermediate and large ship program representatives.

Dinner for Day 1 is to be on board the Royal Caribbean Cruise Line’s new ship Ocean Explorer. Rich Findlay (U. of Miami) has a program to instrument this vessel as a ship of opportunity.  Before adjourning for the day, Rich gave a brief outline of the cruise ship operations before we get there.  All superlatives.  The purpose is to get an excellent long-term data base once per week just North of the Bahamas from Miami to Barbados.
 

Question:  Who does the scientists submit proposals to?

Adjourn Day 1

 

Thursday, October 19, 2000 

Call Day-Two to order and announcements - Rumor had it that Tony Amos was lost on the Palisades Parkway, but in fact he was simply late.  We deferred his presentation on INMARTECH until after lunch.  Dale made announcements about the day’s logistics, session locations and lunch.

Break out sessions: 

Workshop session on 0.322 electrical wire termination techniques  (Dave Nelson and Tom Wilson provided the demonstration).  Annette DeSilva took pictures.  Tom Wilson took prints.  Dan Mertez took digital pictures.

The demonstration showed methods of terminating the standard 0.322" diameter double-armored conducting cable used primarily for CTD deployments.  The session provided many useful tips with an opportunity for questions and answers.  Equipment and products used were demonstrated as well as procedures.  In addition to the termination procedure, Dave also explained a method for repairing a cable with a broken wire in the middle of the cable.

Workshop on Salinometer techniques – A hands-on interactive session with Bruce Huber (LDEO)

Bruce demonstrated techniques used to run a Guideline laboratory salinometer, the main instrument used by UNOLS vessels to determine salinity to a high degree of accuracy.  RVTEC attendees wishing to do so were able to run samples on the instrument Bruce had set up. Various techniques were discussed (temperature regulation, leaving pump on “to do or not to do,” settings, sample collection techniques, storage of samples before running on salinometer, bottle types and closures, handling and storing standard sea water).  One of the most useful aspects of this session was the input of attendees, telling of their methods for running salinities.  It is obvious that this subject has garnered the attention of many of us in RVTEC and a considerable effort has been made to make routine salinity determinations among the most accurate of measurements regularly done at sea.  If there was one message to come out of the session it was “Temperature, temperature, temperature.” The regulation of the room and sample temperature to within narrow limits is essential when dealing with salinometers.

SeaNet Tutorial Session – Steven Lerner, Andrew Maffei and Scott McCue provided The SeaNet Tutorial Session.  A training session guide was provided by the group and is contained in Appendix VII and on the web at <http://www.seanet.int/Documents/seanet_training2.pdf>.  The session covered concepts/terminology, architecture, theory of operation, operator interface, starting interactive Internet sessions performing Batch file transfers, configuration, and tips.

The meeting reassembled after lunch at 1320

Call for Nominations - John Freitag made a call for RVTEC Chair nominations,

Report from INMARTECH 2000 by Tony Amos (UTMSI) and other attendees - Tony reported on the meeting that was held at the Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek der Zee (Netherlands Institute for Undersea Research, or NIOZ) in Texel, Holland on September 19 - 22, 2000.  The meeting was well run and organized.   There were several RVTEC attendees here today who also attended: Marc Willis (OSU), Bill Martin (U. Washington), Woody Sutherland (SIO), Barrie Walden (WHOI), and Glen Hendrickson (USCG). The meeting was well organized with a general session followed by parallel sessions and ending with a general session.  Each session had a chairman and a raconteur.  The raconteur provided a five-minute summary after the session as a wrap up.  Tony thought this was a good idea. Woody provided a report to the meeting on the INMARTECH 98.  Tony showed a video of Texel including the bus ride to the meeting, the facility, main meeting room, their primary research ship, the PELAGIA, and equipment displays.  At the end of the meeting, participants went on a day-long trip on their smaller research vessel for a short cruise that included doing a trawl, and a visit to an island called “No Man’s Land.”  Tony thought that NIOZ did an excellent job with the meeting and tour.  The ferry that connects Texel with the rest of Holland had an ADCP on board continuously collecting and displaying current, temperature, and salinity data for both research use and public information.  Tony noted that NIOZ makes extensive use of laboratory and other general use vans. He also said that meeting organizers had a difficult time finding speakers, something to be noted for future INMARTECH meetings.  The 2002 INMARTECH will be held in Japan.

2001 RVTEC/RVOC Joint Meeting - John Freitag made the suggestion of having a joint RVOC/RVTEC meeting in 2001.  He asked RVTEC to consider this suggestion and provide any feedback.

Afternoon Break out sessions:

· Workshop session on 0.322 electrical wire termination techniques (Repeat)

Break - There was a BREAK following the Breakout sessions and the meeting reconvened in general session at 3:30 PM in auditorium.

HEALY Video - John Freitag showed a video of the HEALY ice trials and underwater images of the ship while underway.  This was followed by a group discussion of the breakout sessions.  John wanted to know how people like the breakout session format.  Comments included:

· The Sessions were given too much time.

High Speed Data Communication - Larry Inglebert (of Stratos) provided a discussion on Stratos Mobile Networks and INMARSAT.  His viewgraphs are included asAppendix VIII.  Larry introduced the Stratos company, a Canadian Company that has Inmarsat A (Many users in our group - it is very popular), INMARSAT B (gave applications of A&B), and Stratos Inmarsat C.  He talked about the INMARSAT M4 Global Area Network system.  He described the Inmarsat F1/F3 Marine HSD Roadmap system.  F1 is geared toward replacing Marine B terminals. It is currently in beta testing and has the GPS built into the antenna.  F3 is marketed toward super yachts and is also currently in beta testing.  It is scheduled to be available by the second quarter of 2001.  The system uses M4 specifications and is approximately 2.5-feet by 2.5-feet in size and uses Afloat Telecommunications Service (ATS), Stratos Inmarsat lease coverage, and Stratos CN-17 and best lease services.  It is a fairly compact system running at 4.8 kbps (voice) and has applications such as video conferencing.  There followed a series of Questions and Answers.

Question:  What is the cost of lease service?

Question:  What platforms does it support?

Answer: Windows 95, 98, 2000.

Question:  What happened to M1, M2, and M3?

Question:  Is there an M4 packet data service?

Answer: Not available yet.

Question:  Does it cover the entire globe?

Answer: It uses the standard INMARSAT service.

Question:  What is the data rate?

Question:  What is Stratos BEST service?

Question:  What are the differences between Inmarsat B and M4?

ONRUST Replacement - Tom Wilson reported on StonyBrook’s new vessel.  Their present vessel, the ONRUST is now “pushing its capabilities.”  The new vessel will be a product of the Fishing Capacity Reduction Initiative, and, in fact, is the last of the buyout boats.  It will be renamed SeaWolf.  It is 80-ft x11-ft and 120 tons.  It has an adapted fish hold for storage, can berth 11 people plus captain and mate.  It should be easy to run wire and will work the New York Bight and the Hudson River.  The projected annual operating time is estimated at 120 days/year.  It will be ready for operation by mid January 2001.  The vessel specifications are included in Appendix IX and posted on the web at <http://Alpha1.msrc.sunysb.edu/~vessels/Seawolf/seawolf.htm>.

Day-Two of the meeting adjourned at 1630.
 

Friday, October 20, 2000 

Informal Discussion 

Show and Tell Session 

OSU Data display system – Toby Martin, OSU 

Toby reported on the real-time html based data displays now being used on OSU ships.  Information about the system is included in Appendix X.  The system allows you to look at your data, remotely monitor your instruments, share graphs via the web, or provide full-time access for the world.  Web based data displays provide remote access, multi-site access, familiar user interfaces, and a simple programmer interface.  The system includes data acquisition, data archiving, and data selection.  A variety of parameters can be accessed.  Toby showed an example of sea temperature over a 72-hour period.  The system allows you to look at the data (not just the plots), with different measurements displayed in different windows.