UNOLS Research Vessel Technical Enhancement Committee (RVTEC)
2006 Annual Meeting
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Redfield Auditorium
Water Street, Woods Hole
October 16, 2006
Meeting
Minutes
A copy of these minutes can be downloaded as a pdf
document: <200610rvtmi.pdf>
Executive Summary
RVTEC met on October 16, 2006 at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(WHOI). Bill
Martin, RVTEC Chair, presided over the meeting.
This was a compressed
into a one-day meeting in order to accommodate INMARTECH to hear reports from
Agency representatives and UNOLS Committee liaisons. Issues of interest were reported on and discussed
as identified on the meeting Agenda (Appendix I).
Elections were held for the RVTEC Chair
position prior to the meeting and Bill Martin was elected to a second term as
Chair.
The RVTEC meeting was followed by the 2006 International Marine
Technician Symposium that included a variety of technical sessions.
RVTEC Action Items
Radio Frequency Spectrum – A
committee of Richard Perry (Chair),
Steve Hartz, and Toby Martin will continue to survey RVTEC members to
identify the frequency spectrum use from UNOLS vessels.
Safe Working
Loads (SWL) – RVTEC members were
tasked to review the SWL Standards document drafted by Matt Hawkins and provide
comments.
Appendices
|
I |
|
|
II |
|
|
III |
|
|
IV |
|
|
V |
|
|
VI |
|
|
VII |
|
|
VIII |
|
|
IX |
|
|
X |
Meeting
Summary Report:
Meeting
Called to Order – Bill Martin, RVTEC Chair, called the
meeting to order at 0845 and provided introductory remarks. Barrie Walden (WHOI) welcomed the group to
Woods Hole and provided meeting logistics.
The agenda
for the meeting is included as Appendix I and was followed as
recorded here. Participants at the
meeting introduced themselves. The
participant list is included as Appendix II.
Accept
Minutes – A motion was made and passed to accept the
minutes from the 2005 Annual RVTEC meeting.
Agency
Reports:
National
Science Foundation (NSF) - Sandy Shor provided
the report for NSF. His slides are
contained in Appendix III.
FY06 was a
very difficult one for OCE facilities, with Ship Operations projections
indicating major shortfalls due to rising fuel costs and severe budget
constraints. This led to UNOLS
involvement in developing procedures for planning future vessel non operational
periods and early retirements, and a drop of nearly 1000 NSF operating days
(~30%) from 2005 to 2006. The impact of this on technician and instrumentation
funding from NSF was substantial. The good news is that at year-end, NSF found
that Ship Operation costs were not as high as feared, and FY07 began with
substantial carry-forward funds to support ship costs, and modestly increased
NSF ship time scheduled for 2007.
·
Alaska
Region Research Vessel (ARRV) construction – NSF expects MREFC funding to begin
in FY07
·
·
Ocean
Observatory Initiative (OOI)- NSF expects MREFC funding to begin in FY07
There are a
few Mid-Size (OCE) initiatives underway (in very general terms, mid-size
initiatives are greater
than a few million dollars and less than several tens of millions in cost). These include the:
·
Regional
Class Research Vessels (RCRV) acquisition.
The design study is ongoing and operator selection is expected in FY07.
·
R/V Marcus
Langseth conversion
·
Human
Occupied Vehicle (HOV) design and construction by WHOI to replace DSV
Lastly,
Navy – Bob Houtman provided the report for the Navy. Unlike the other agencies, the Department of
Defense has a budget. They expect the
ship operations budget to be level with the 2006 budget. This represents a base budget of about $10M
plus additional funding from other Navy organizations (NRL, NPS, etc). There are also plus-up funds of about $4.1M
that will be distributed to the large Navy ship operators.
The ship
utilization projections for 2007 were low.
As a result, the Navy decided that instead of laying up a large ship, in
2007 Melville will only be used for Navy projects.
Next Bob
reported on recapitalization of the fleet.
He has been working with Bob Winokur to draft the Interagency Working
Group on Facilities (IWG-F) Fleet plan.
The Plan has been submitted to the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and
Technology (JSOST) for review and comment. The plan is all inclusive and covers all of
the federal research ships, not just academic research vessels.
An update on
the Ocean Class acquisition process was provided. The Navy convened a Naval Research Advisory
Committee (NRAC) to study whether the Navy should make future investments in
the UNOLS fleet. The study determined
that there was a significant benefit for the Navy to invest in UNOLS. A recommendation from the study was that the
Navy should support acquisition of two new Ocean Class ships versus four ships
that had been included in previous plans.
The Navy has told Congress that they plan to move forward with
acquisition of two Ocean Class ships and they will develop budget options over
the next two years.
Discussion
followed:
Q) Dale Chayes
– Will the Navy require a designated ship (like Melville) into the
future?
A) Bob
Houtman – There were Navy programs that required a ship in the Western Pacific
in 2007. Melville was a good
match since it was already there. There
have been some indications that the Navy need to return to the Western Pacific in
2008 for follow-on work.
Q) Shawn Smith
– Will there by any data restrictions since the Melville operations are
in support of Navy programs?
A) Bob
Houtman – No, but let him know if any problems arise.
National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) -
Mike Webb provided the report for NOAA.
Like NSF, NOAA does not have their FY07 budget and is on a continuing
resolution until November 17th. Their budget is very unclear at this
time. They are looking for funds to
repair the piers in
Discussion
followed:
Q) What happened
in the fire at
A) Mike
explained that in the early morning on July 5th, sometime after
fireworks display, the NOAA pier caught on fire. Cars and trailers on the piers burned. Hydro data was lost. The piers are constructed of wood and have
been condemned since the fire. NOAA leases
the piers and the owner hasn’t decided what to do with them. There are three possible causes of the fire
that are being considered:
-
The T-AGO’s
ship power cable had an electrical short and started the fire.
-
Fireworks
landed on the pier and caught fire.
-
Electrical
fuse box.
USCG
Icebreaker Healy was commissioned for Arctic science. In 2006, the
ship’s science operations were cut short after a tragic diving accident
resulted in the deaths of two crew members.
The final
National Academy of Science report “Assessment of US Coast Guard Polar
Icebreaker Roles and Future Needs” was released on September 27, 2006. The
report emphasized the need for the
2007
RVTEC Meeting – Bill Martin reported that Woody Sutherland
(SIO) and Steve Poulos (U. Hawaii) both volunteered to host the 2007 RVTEC
meeting. He asked meeting participants
to think about this and it will be revisited later in the meeting.
UNOLS
Reports:
Research
Vessel Operators’ Committee (RVOC) and Safety Committee - Bill Martin reported that the major RVOC items of interest to
RVTEC concern establishing Safe Working Loads (SWL) for wire and the update of the
Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS).
The Safety Committee is about half-way complete with the RVSS update.
There will be a couple of new chapters.
Safe Working Loads is on the RVTEC agenda for discussion later in the meeting.
Fleet
Improvement Committee (FIC) - Marc Willis reported
on the various fleet renewal activities:
Regional
Class – NSF is supporting the acquisition of the
Regional Class ships, but they didn’t have the internal experience to manage
the construction effort. They signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
Navy’s PEO-Ships to manage the design/build contracts for the ships. A call for
proposals to design and build the Regional Class ships went out and seven teams
responded. In May 2006, contract awards were made to two teams, Dakota Creek
and Nichols Brothers. The first design review meeting was held with each design
team just prior to this RVTEC meeting. At the meeting, NSF alerted the teams that there is a construction price cap for
each vessel. After a one-year design effort, one ship design
will be selected for construction. The contract for construction of the first
ship is expected in fall 2007. The ship is expected to take about two years for
construction with another six months for outfitting. Solicitation for the
operator of the first Regional Class ship is expected soon.
In early
2006, a subcommittee convened to review the science outfitting plans for the
Regional Class vessels as called out by the Navy Statement of
Requirements. The Subcommittee included
Steve Poulos, Stewart Lamerdin, Dave Hebert, Bill Martin, Barrie Walden, Marc
Willis, and Dale Chayes. There were some
serious flaws with the original requirements.
The Subcommittee met with NAVSEA and NSF in March 2006 and provided
recommendations. They haven’t heard back
as to what was actually incorporated.
Ocean
Class – As Bob Houtman reported earlier in the
meeting, two ships are now planned.
Science
UNOLS ships
are now dry
Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Workshop findings will be reported later in the
meeting.
Marc
encouraged RVTEC to read Matt Hawkins draft SWL document.
Arctic
Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) - Dale
Chayes reported that the final report from the National Research Council Committee on
the Assessment of U.S. Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Roles and Future Needs: Polar Icebreakers in a Changing
World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs,
has been published and is available as a PDF free from <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11753.html>.
It recommends the USCG as operator of a multipurpose fleet.
The operational arrangements for supporting science on the Healy continue to be in serious flux. They have been coordinating support among LDEO, SIO/ODF with coring support from OSU. The NSF/OPP/Arctic program expects to issue a request for proposals for long term support someday.
Two of four scheduled science cruises on the Healy were successfully completed prior to a fatal diving accident after which the USCG canceled the rest of the operating season. A short underway period at the end of October for qualifications and training, followed by a shipyard and dry-docking period is planned.
The next AICC meeting will be
hosted by the
Scientific Committee for Oceanographic Research (SCOAR) - Steve Hartz reported that SCOAR
met in May, 2006 in conjunction with their first Airborne Ocean Science
Conference at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.
About 35 aircraft-ocean/atmospheric
scientists and operators attended.
SCOAR continues to contribute to
discussions about a better method for disseminating information about the
nation's fleet of research aircraft and about getting scheduled on one. The
next SCOAR meeting is planned in mid November via teleconference and will take
up the topic of a community survey of needed and desired airborne sensors.
Deep Submergence Science Committee (DESSC) - Annette DeSilva provided the DESSC report. Her slides are included as Appendix IV. In 2006, DESSC established criteria for incorporating new assets into the National Deep Submergence Facility (NDSF). NSF requested DESSC to develop the criteria because in the coming years there will be significant demand for new tools to support deep submergence research. There will also be a need for uniform community access to them. The criteria are available on the UNOLS web page at: <http://www.unols.org/committees/dessc/CRITERIADOCUMENT_062206.PDF>.
Applying the criteria, DESSC reviewed a request to add the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) ABE/Sentry to the NDSF. DESSC recommended that it be added to the NDSF concurrent with the removal of the two towed vehicles DSL-120A and Argos II. The Council endorsed DESSC’s recommendation in June 2006.
In order to
better track the status of vehicle and system performance, DESSC will conduct
debrief interviews of PIs who use the NDSF assets (Jason,
NSF and NOAA
tasked DESSC to establish safety standards for HOVs. This task arose because the
replacement for
The 2006 DESSC Annual Planning Meeting will be held on Thursday, November 9th at the Seattle Aquarium. The meeting is in conjunction with the Western Society of Naturalists (WSN) meeting. This forum was selected in an attempt to better reach the deep submergence biologists.
Subcommittee
Reports:
Post
Cruise Assessment (PCA) Subcommittee Report – Mary Lynn Dickson reported on the activities and preliminary
findings of the PCA Subcommittee. The PCA
Subcommittee includes Curt Collins (Chair), Wilf Gardner, Mary-Lynn Dickson and
Tim Askew. The percent return for Post
Cruise Assessments (PCAs) for the UNOLS fleet is about 60% currently. PCAs submitted by Chief Scientists, Captains,
and Marine Technicians for cruises conducted during the previous year for those
ships were examined. The PCAs appear to be useful in soliciting critical
comments on ship operations and associated science activities. The PCA process has been useful in
identifying what worked well on the cruise and what needs to be improved.
The Subcommittee will recommend that the reports
should be treated as privileged communications and with limited distribution
(Chief Scientist, Principal Investigator, Marine Superintendent, Technical
Services Manager, Ship’s Master, Ship’s Technician, Agency Ship Manager, Agency
Science Manager, and UNOLS Office). The
practice of posting PCAs on a ship’s bulletin board should be discontinued.
The subcommittee also feels that the Marine Technician
PCA report should be simplified so that it only addresses problems with the
ship’s scientific equipment. Lastly, the
subcommittee recommends that the PCA grading scale be changed.
UNOLS
Activities – Peter Wiebe, UNOLS Immediate Past-Chair,
provided the report that covered 2006 UNOLS issues, activities, and
accomplishments. His slides are included
as Appendix V. Major
activities included:
·
Briefing the
Naval Research Advisory Council on “What is UNOLS”
·
Forming a
subcommittee to develop procedures for Recommending Non-operational periods in
the UNOLS Fleet. This document was then
submitted to NSF, ONR, and NOAA.
·
Peter, Dave
Hebert (FIC Chair) and the UNOLS Office provided input to the IWG-F regarding
their Fleet Renewal Plan
·
The Marcus
Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC) was formed. This is a new UNOLS standing committee.
·
Initiated
discussions on Codes of Conduct - The Impact of Scientific Studies on the
Environment. A presentation was made at
the UNOLS Council meeting on “High Seas” Conservation and Marine Scientific
Research.
Peter
reviewed the names of departing Council and Committee Members. He provided the UNOLS Council Election
Results and the 2006 committee appointments. He then presented a chart showing the current Federal
Oceanographic fleet renewal plans along with a chart that provides a projection
of Fleet capacity into the future.
UNOLS developed
a brochure to help answer the question, “What is UNOLS?” The brochure provides
a short description of what UNOLS is and what it does. Committee structure and
tasks, number of ships, their distribution, and decommissioning dates are
included. The brochure provides the status
of the UNOLS fleet today and status of funding.
Next Peter
reported on the findings and recommendations from the UNOLS Council regarding
budget shortfalls and procedures for recommending non-operational ship
periods. The findings included:
·
The
shortfall in funding for the UNOLS fleet is not a short-term issue.
·
The under
funded situation of the UNOLS fleet is unlikely to be rectified in the near
future.
·
While NSF
support for the fleet has, until recently, supported a nearly constant number
of operating days over the past decade, Navy and NOAA support has been
gradually declining. This trend is unlikely to be reversed.
·
The
under-funded situation for the UNOLS fleet could potentially become even worse
as new larger ships replace the Intermediate and Regional ships.
·
Maximum
funding for science field programs can be preserved with cold lay-ups or
reducing the fleet size.
The UNOLS
Council has recommended a list of values, presented in order of priority, to be
used when making decisions about lay-ups, partial lay-ups and retirements. In
prioritized order, the values are:
1. Meeting Science
Needs
2. Geographic
Availability
3. Cost of Operations
4. Quality of
Operations
5. Sharing the Pain
6. Diversity of
Operators
As for 2007
fleet operation recommendations, nothing formal has been received from the agencies
to date (10/2/06). However, no lay-ups
are planned, although few schedules are at optimal levels.
Lastly,
Peter reviewed the 2006 UNOLS Vision,
·
Promote
broad, coordinated access to oceanographic research facilities (access)
·
Support
continuous improvement of existing facilities (improvement)
·
Plan for and
foster support for the oceanographic facilities of the future (planning)
Discussion
followed:
Q) During ship
lay-up periods, can operators use this time for training, etc?
A) Perhaps.
Q) Peter was
asked if he was satisfied with incorporating the OOI needs into UNOLS.
A) Peter –
Additional information is needed. The OOI
is working to come up with a new estimate on how much vessel support is
required for OOI. There was an NSB study
and the UNOLS Chave report that estimated that amount of ship time needed. However, reality set in, and given the financial
constraints, OOI is scaling down their estimates. Sandy Shor added that the funds for OOI
construction has not yet started and may perhaps start in FY07, but could be pushed
back to 2008. It is silly to try to make
estimates at this time.
Q) Stewart
Lamerdin expressed the importance of crew retention and training. He asked if the Council is addressing this
issue.
A) Peter –
the Council is not yet addressing this issue.
They need to hear from RVTEC about the scope and nature of the problem.
q) Stewart
Lamerdin – Should there be a letter from the RVTEC to the Council regarding
this issue?
A) Yes
Joe reviewed
some of the findings, technical concerns, and improvement recommendations that
were identified during the workshop. For
visual impairments, suggestions for improvements included computer compatibility
with visual aid software, consistent lighting throughout work areas and vans,
and proper signage. Physical impairment improvements
included mounting items within reach (e.g. off/on switches), providing
accessibility to ship provided equipment, lowering the height of benches,
sinks, fume hoods, maintaining line of sight in labs, and providing lock downs
for wheel chairs in labs.
Recommendations
were suggested to address safety issues.
These included:
·
Improving
pre-cruise communication among scientists, marine techs, ship’s officers and
crew
·
Adding warning
strips – tactile stripping at base and tops of ladders
·
Start railings
of ladders and on both sides of ladders
·
Add high
contrast coatings on trip hazards (cleats, tie-downs, etc.)
·
Reduce
obstacles in passageways
·
Add strobe
lights/visual cues connected to the ship’s alarm system
·
Institute a
buddy system
·
Emergency
procedures/safety manuals should be available in a format that can be read by the
visually impaired
Discussion
followed:
Q) How will
physically impaired individuals board and disembark from the vessel?
A) Joe
replied that this will be one of the biggest hurdles and solutions are still
being considered.
Q) Did the
ADA Workshop address colorblind disabilities? – A) No
Q) How would
a disabled person be evacuated from the ship during an emergency?
A) This was
addressed at the workshop and it was suggested that the procedures that are
currently in place to evacuate an injured person would apply.
Radio
Frequency Spectrum Management Committee – Richard
Perry provided a report on the subcommittee’s activities. His slides are included as Appendix VII. The subcommittee includes Steve Hartz, Toby
Martin, and Richard Perry (Chair).
Richard
explained that the committee is working to document RF usage. They are documenting RF services utilized in
an effort to preserve those services for continued usage by the oceanographic
academic community. Competition for the
RF spectrum is increasing and underused services are potential targets for aspiring
users.
The survey
covered shipboard RF usage both for science purposes as well as standard ships
navigation and communication services.
They also attempted to document specialized science gear usage.
The results
of the survey were reviewed. The use of
twenty four services was documented. Five
new or future services were identified as being potentially of interest to our
community. Richard explained that there
were fewer than ten respondents to the survey at this time. The survey and
results can be viewed at <http://www.shipops.oregonstate.edu/martech/rvtec/2005/rf.survey>.
Discussion
followed on what should be the next steps - Where do they go from here? Bill Martin explained that the RVTEC survey
was the first step. Peter Wiebe added by
explaining RVTEC survey was chosen as the first step because they know the most
about the shipboard uses. The next step
would be to poll the scientists and instrumentation engineers to determine what
additional RF spectrum uses they have or see coming. As a third step, the RF spectrum needs of the
ocean observing systems should be evaluated.
The
committee will continue to seek input from RVTEC to increase the response
level.
Lunch
Break
RVTEC Issues and Items of Interest:
Equipment
Calibration – Bill reported that there was an email
to the UNOLS office from a scientist regarding instrumentation calibration
information. The scientist claimed that
the shipboard marine technicians on the cruise did not know how to give it to
the scientist. There appears to be some
confusion since most technicians know how to provide this information and it is
routinely provided. It was point out
that there is some equipment that is not as standard and the calibration might
not be obvious. Discussion followed on
what should be provided to the scientists as standard calibration
information. Some scientists request the
equipment to be calibrated more frequently than standard practice. Barrie Walden suggested that calibration
practices could be included in the on-line Technical Services document for each
operation.
Defined
Levels of Technician / Instrumentation Support Update – Annette DeSilva provided a brief status report on the effort to
develop an on-line site for posting the technical services support
information. This data base will be part
of the UNOLS ship time request system <http://unolsweb.cms.udel.edu/STRS/Public/diu_login.aspx>. Annette displayed the site and showed where
the ship users would eventually be able to access the technical serviced
information. The delay in the project
has mostly been due to limited people-resources. We are hopeful over the course of the next
year the on-line system can be developed.
Stay tuned.
HiSeasNet
Update - Bill Martin presented slides that had
been prepared by Steve Foley and Jonathon Berger (SIO). They are included as Appendix VIII. The slides provide the current status of
HiSeasNet and the services that are provided.
The services include installation for new ships, ship and shore
equipment maintenance twice a year, satellite bandwidth, and Hub station
connection to Internet.
The HiSeasNet
C-Band (2.4m dish, Global coverage (excluding polar regions)) is now installed
on Atlantis, Kilo Moana, Knorr, Melville, Revelle, Seward Johnson, Thompson,
and will also be on the Langseth.
Ku-Band (1.2m dish, mostly
Slides
showing antenna comparisons, Pacific and Atlantic Coverage, Ku-band coverage,
and equipment downtime figures were provided.
Most problems are user or ship related.
The slides provided information about the problems experienced and
possible solutions. These included:
·
Power
outage, antenna repoints, gyro failure, unfamiliarity with gear, etc.
o
Solution:
Learn gear and ship quirks via training program under development
·
Antenna
pointing failures occur, but usually are not catastrophic
o
Solution:
Upgrading older ship installations during maintenance to newer SeaTel antenna
logic
·
When
equipment dies, it is usually RF gear, despite it being the “most reliable in
the business”
o
Solution:
Spare LNAs on board, encourage all ships to have on-board RF spares, depot
converter and power amp spares in SD
Future HiSeasNet
work includes development of a training program, bringing the Langseth system
online, and continued routine maintenance/upgrades of all equipment.
NOAA
VSAT Project - Doug Perry provided the report on
NOAA’s VSAT project. His slides are
included as Appendix IX.
The VSAT Project
Goals are to provide secure 24/7 WAN connection between deployed ship networks
and the NOAA Trusted Campus Network. The
goal is also to enhance safety, operational efficiency and crew morale. They will utilize a phased approach to spread
acquisition costs over several fiscal years and hope to develop in-house
expertise to reduce installation and maintenance costs.