1998 UNOLS Summer Council Meeting Summary Report

1998 UNOLS Summer Council Meeting Summary Report
UNIVERSITY - NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY SYSTEM •
UNOLS COUNCIL MEETING
SUMMARY REPORT
July 1-2, 1998
W. Alton Jones Campus
Whispering Pines Conference Center - Sycamore Lodge
University of Rhode Island
West Greenwich, RI
4114I
arm „ s • - -
Ana
,
%, r1
26'
___4kg,
11011SAL
AIMIL
"IICIMISNAMIMMIIMPFar
-■■■•■• ••
UNOLS Council Meeting Report
July 1-2, 1998
Whispering Pines Conference Center
W. Alton Jones Campus
University of Rhode Island
Appendices
I.
H.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIV.
XV.
Council Meeting Agenda
Meeting Participants
Committee Reports
UNOLS Charge/Operating Days 1995-1999
NSF Viewgraphs
CORE Viewgraphs
USCG Report
NSF Review Terms of Reference
UNOLS Viewgraphs for FOFCC
FIO's Replacement for SUNCOASTER
AGOR SWATH Comparisons
Airships for Marine Mammal Research
UNOLS Council Nominations
Z Drives Glosten Report Recommendations
AGOR 25 Test & Trials Schedule
1 July 1998
WELCOME & INTRODUCTION - The UNOLS Council met in the Sycamore Lodge
conference room at the Whispering Pines Conference Center, W. Alton Jones Campus of
the University of Rhode Island on 1-2 July 1998. The meeting was called to order at 0830
by Ken Johnson, UNOLS Chair. The items of the agenda, Appendix I, were addressed in
the order as reported below. The participants of the meeting are listed in Appendix II.
All participants introduced themselves and Ken asked for any additions to the agenda.
Three items were added to the agenda, discussion on Science Mission Requirements
(SMRs), ATLANTIS test schedule and discussion on RV BLUE HERON.
ACCEPT MINUTES - The meeting minutes of the UNOLS Council February meeting
were accepted as written.
COMMITTEE REPORTS - Committee reports were provided in advance to Ken
Johnson, and included as Appendix III. The committee chairs provided updates not
included in their reports. Below is a brief summary of these reports.
Research Vessel Technical Enhancement Committee (RVTEC) - Ken reported that
RVTEC would be hosting the second International Marine Technician Workshop
(INMARTECH '98) conference in conjunction with their annual meeting. INMARTECH
`98 will be held on 20-22 October in La Jolla, CA. The regular annual RVTEC meeting
will be held the day before this conference on the 19th. RVTEC has been playing a major
role is lending support for the Arctic Icebreaker Coordination Committee (AICC) in their
effort to provide science systems testing for the USCG's icebreaker, MICHAEL HEALY,
currently undL construction at Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana.
Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) - The Fleet Improvement Committee has been
concentrating its efforts in developing Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) for an east
coast intermediate sized vessel as well as a vessel suitable for the waters off Alaska. This
second vessel requirements will have ice strengthening and will be capable of fisheries
research.
DEep Submergence Science Committee (DESSC) - The DESSC has been working on
an arcniving policy for data collected using the National Deep Submergence Facility
assets. They are also developing a "White Paper" on deep submergence science. Plans
are being discussed for a national workshop to address future deep submergence asset
needs. The committee also working on the update of their Terms of Reference.
Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) - The AICC has been working
with the RVTEC and the USCG in developing test procedures for testing the science
systems on the Coast Guard icebreaker, MICHAEL HEALY. The AICC also sees their
role as a advocacy group for Arctic science, similar to that of DESSC with the deep
submergence community, and will be working on expeditionary planning for Arctic
research. The terms of two AICC members will be coming up this fall. A brief discussion
followed on the $24M in the Senate budget for facility support of Arctic science. There
has been no decision on whether there will be operation support for HEALY. Without a
subsidized dayrate, the ship may be too expensive to the science users. The AICC
coordinated a Science of Opportunity cruise for POLAR SEA which is currently operating
in the western Arctic.
Research Vessel Operators' Committee (RVOC) - The RVOC will be holding their
annual meeting this year on 4-6 November at the University of Hawaii. The RVOC Safety
Committee has been working on a safety video that will be used by all ships as an
introduction to safety for scientists using the ships. The video is in the final stages of
production and should be distributed soon. This committee is also working on an update
to the RVOC Safety Standards. RVOC has a Medical Standards Committee that is
working on medical standards for crew of UNOLS vessels.
Ship Scheduling Committee (SSC) - Both Ken Johnson and Don Moller discussed the
trends in ship usage. Appendix IV provides a summary of ship days from 1995 to 1999.
The 1999 numbers were developed from the 23 June Ship Schedule Review Meeting and
reflect the schedules as posted at that time.
2
Year
Total Days
1995
4877
1997
5096
1996
4315
1998
5399
1999
4690
For 1998 three ships were scheduled for reduced schedules (MELVILLE half year,
EWING one third year and ENDEAVOR full years lay-up) however, additional work
materialized rounding out their schedules into modestly successful years. In 1999 it would
appear that KNORR will not have a schedule and will lay-up. All intermediate ships
reflect light schedules for 1999. The smaller ships in the Fleet are very busy. NSF had
tasked the large ship operators to come up with a lay-up plan. KNORR's lay-up
represents this. In 1999, large ship totals are down roughly 100 days from 1998.
The UNOLS Fleet charge days by agency were discussed, see Appendix IV.
AGENCY and OTHER REPORTS
Department of State (DOS) - The Department of State report was provided by Tom
Cocke. A meeting was held with Mexican officials concerning sovereign immunity and the
boarding of NOAA vessels along with other clearance issues. At the time, it appeared that
significant progress was made, however, clearances still remain difficult. This is of
concern since there are three NOAA fisheries cruises coming up soon. Because the U S is
not a signature to the Law of the Sea Convention clearances around the world are
becoming more difficult and requiring more conditions causing the process to slow. Tom
noted that Cuba requests have gone without response. Tom reported fewer clearance
requests this year, probably the result of a reduction in funding of NSF proposals.
The personnel situation in Tom's office has improved somewhat with the hiring of
Elizabeth Maruschak. She is being funded for half time by NSF through CORE and
hopefully be able to work full time if funding from ONR and NOAA materializes. State is
working on hiring a full time backup for Tom. This issue was addressed at the FOFCC
meeting. FOFCC was supportive of Tom's need for assistance. Ken Johnson offered to
write a letter to DOS expressing UNOLS support on the issue.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Commander Beth
White provided the NOAA report. NOAA's TAGOS vessel, RELENTLESS, has been
renamed GORDON GUNTER. The ship will be converted for fisheries work and will
replace CHAPMAN in the Gulf of Mexico. MILLER FREEMAN will undergo a major
overhaul starting in August of this year. DAVID STARR JORDON is scheduled for a
major overhaul in 2000.
NOAA is completing a design review and model test for the FRV 40. This is the
proposed design for the new generation acoustically quiet fisheries research vessel. Three
of these ships are in the Presidential Budget (one each for 2000-2002). AQUARIUS, the
undersea laboratory, is soon to get its certification .
3
An agreement has been reached to lift the hiring freeze on the NOAA Corps. The
agreement includes a new ceiling of 240 Corps officers with no flag rank and a civilian in
charge. A bill in Congress would alter this agreement to include a flag officer and increase
the ceiling to 264-299. In either case recruiting will not start until next fiscal year.
RON BROWN is scheduled to operate 240 days at sea in 1999. Two NSF programs,
tentatively planned for BROWN could not be scheduled (funding was declined on one and
equipment scheduling conflicts prevented the other).
National Science Foundation (NSF) - The NSF report was given by Don Heinrichs. His
view graphs are included as Appendix V. The NSF budget for 1999 is still pending and
expectations remain the same as those reported at the February Council meeting in
Galveston. The 1998 budget was flat when compared to 1997. In 1999 Ocean Science
Research Support has requested a 13.7% increase. Facilities has requested $56.96M
representing a 9% increase over 1998. Both the House and Senate Committees have
different versions of the NSF funding bill but both show an increase. The bill goes to
conference in September.
In an effort to resolve the conflicts in funding the shared use equipment/technical support
for sea going programs, NSF is considering removing this support from the research
proposal grant. Requests for technical support would come into the Technical Services
Program. This should help to eliminate the problems associated with variable costs to the
PIs when schedules change and science programs are moved from one ship to another.
Some elements of this will be implemented in 1999.
Rita Colwell has been confirmed by the Senate but has not yet been sworn in. She will
replace Neil Lane as Director NSF when he takes over OSDP. The Geoscience
Directorate will be putting together a separate Facilities Plan of 5 years. It will respond to
"What facilities are needed to implement the science plan".
The NSF newsletter is calling for an open solicitation to the science community to provide
input to the academic fleet review.
Don reported that NSF will again conduct a performance review. They will most likely
request assistance from the UNOLS Office in preparing the ship operations review
section.
NSF is planning a symposium 28-30 October to celebrate the Foundation's 50th
anniversary. Numerous leaders from the past have been invited.
Naval Oceanographic Center (NAVO) - Pat Dennis gave the report for NAVO. NAVO
is completing a second year of funding ship time for the UNOLS Fleet. The third year
funding is not firm, however, it looks promising. Pat explained that this should not be
considered supplemental funding of the UNOLS Fleet but should be viewed as a mutually
beneficial arrangement where NAVO gets quality scientific facilities and service at a cost
4
effective rate while UNOLS is able to maximize its schedule efficiency with the added
work. Pat reiterated NAVO's full satisfaction with the UNOLS Fleet and complemented
CDR Jim Trees' energetic and supportive role in coordinating the work.
Oceanographer of the Navy (OON) - RADM Tobin has retired as OON and has been
replaced by RADM Ellis. Ed Witman, Technical Director of the OON office, is also
retiring. John Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, has announced his plans for retirement.
These have all been active and vocal supporters of oceanographic research and will be
missed.
The Navy is presently operating seven TAG survey ships. TAG 63 is the 4th of the class
and will soon join the fleet. The fifth ship, TAG 64, is under construction and should be
launched in November or December. A sixth and last ship of this class should be funded
in the 1999 budget. TAG 64 has been named USNS BRUCE HEEZEN. A national ship
naming competition was held by the Navy. Nearly 2000 proposed names were submitted
by schools across the country. The winning class were the fifth graders from Oak Lawn
Elementary School of Cranston, Rhode Island with the name Bruce Heezen. The runner
up was St. Martin's Lutheran School of Annapolis, Maryland. More information on the
contest and the winner can be found at <http://www.oceanographer.navy.mil
/wi nner. ht ml>.
Office of Naval Research (ONR) - Pat Dennis provided the report for ONR. Pat
reported that ONR has budgeted $5.5M facilities money for ship time support of
oceanographic research. This money provides 80% of the funding while 20% comes from
the science programs. This year KNORR was involved in a very successful operation with
the Navy/Marine Corps when it supported a mine countermeasures operation off of
Newfoundland. This was the first time Navy 6.3 funding was used by ONR for a
UNOLS ship. It was suggested that an information package on UNOLS be developed.
The package could be provided to groups like the Navy's 6.3 programs to describe the
resources and capabilities of the UNOLS fleet.
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE) - The CORE report
was provided by Dan Schwartz. A copy of the CORE viewgraphs is included as
Appendix VL CORE has 51 members 35 of which are also members of UNOLS. CORE
institutions receive approximately $780M in Federal Support. CORE Projects include an
Alumni Survey, Education inventory, Ocean science workshop/media cruises aboard
SEWARD JOHNSON and CAPE HATTERAS, an Ocean Science Educators Retreat,
Community College integration - MATE Program, CORE/NRL Postdoctoral Fellowship
Program and Distinguished Visiting Scientists Program. CORE is actively involved in the
National Ocean Science Bowl and the contractor for the National Ocean Partnership
Program (NOPP) Office.
NOPP received $20.5M in funding for 1997 with $7.5M going to support NAVO surveys
on UNOLS ships. In 1998, $24.5M was received and again $7.5M went to NAVO for
UNOLS ship use. 72 proposals were submitted in 1998 for the NOPP funds, with 12
5
proposals selected for funding. CORE has been promoting the Oceans Act of 1998 which
would convene a "Stratton Commission" type panel to review national ocean activities and
recommend a coordinated national policy for the oceans. This bill is still working its way
through Congress. The information on the FY99 appropriations visit the CORE webpage,
http ://core. cast. msstate. edu .
United States Coast Guard (USCG)- The Coast Guard was not represented at the
meeting, nc,,,veN, r, Jon Berkson provided a written report which is included as Appendix
VII. The report provides a update on HEALY. This ship is presently scheduled for
delivery in early 1999 with a delay possible. A 30-meter coring system is being designed
for this ship by Jim Broda of WHOI. The USCG is concerned that science funding has not
been identified for HEALY operations.
POLAR SEA is presently deployed to the Arctic. Academic scientists are aboard as part
of a "Science of Opportunity" cruise. POLAR STAR will be making an Arctic trip in July.
Both ships will also support the SHEBA program. There is concern with an OMB
instruction to require the Coast Guard to seek full reimbursement for operating costs of
HEALY for non-DOD users. The Coast Guard has gone on record in opposition to the
OMB position.
UNOLS ISSUES:
NSF Academic Research Fleet Review - Don Heinrichs provided an update of the NSF
Fleet Review. The first meeting of the review was held at NSF in Arlington, VA on 8-10
June. The Review committee is chaired by Roland Schmitt, RPI retired, with committee
members: Earl Doyle, Shell Development; Steve Ramberg, ONR; Hugo Bezdek, NOAA
retired; Chris d'Elia, U. MD; Ellen Druffel, UC Irvine; Larry Mayer, U. New Brunswick;
and George Weatherly, Florida State. The Committee Terms of Reference are included as
Appendix VIII.
NSF and UNOLS provided presentations to the Committee for the three days of the first
meeting to provide a background on Fleet operations. The second meeting will be held at
SIO in La Jolla, CA on 2-3 September with a site visit of MELVILLE, SPROUL and
ATLANTIS scheduled for 1 September. This meeting will provide projections of future
science trends and cost comparative operations models. Tasking for the second meeting
has been developed. A third meeting is tentatively scheduled for 10-12 November.
The committee's report and recommendations are expected in late 1998/early 1999.
NSF is seeking input from the science ship use community. Ken Johnson and Tom Royer
will write a letter encouraging input.
FOFCC Meeting Report - Ken Johnson gave a summary of the FOFCC meeting that
was held on 30 June in Arlington, VA. The meeting was well attended. FOFCC will be
updating their 1990 Report on Federal Oceanographic Fleet Requirements. The new plan
6
will include other facilities with the possible inclusion of buoys and submersibles. Ken
provided FOFCC a report for UNOLS showing viewgraphs of the UNOLS Operating
days over the last 20 year, operating days for 1998 by ship and UNOLS projected 1998
operations support. These viewgraphs are included as Appendix IX.
National Oceans Conference - Both Ken Johnson and Jack Bash attended the National
Oceans Conference in Monterey, CA on 11-12 June. The conference was considered
useful in that it brought ocean issues to the highest levels of government and could result
in funding increases for ocean research.
Science Mission Requirements (SMR) - Larry Atkinson, FIC Chair, led the discussion
on the progress of developing SMRs for both an east coast research vessel and an Alaskan
vessel. E-mail input has been received from all committee members working on the east
coast SMRs. These will be consolidated with the original Class IV and III SMRs and
prioritized. The East Coast SMRs should be ready in the fall. A conceptual design would
be the next step after funding is secured.
SMR development is progressing on the replacement for ALPHA HELIX. An ice
capability as well as a fisheries capability will be considered in the design of this vessel.
Jim Meehan, NMFS atd member of the SMR committee, commented on the fisheries
capability of this vessel as compared to the NOAA FRV design. An update on the
Alaskan SMRs will be provided at the fall meeting.
New Ship Construction - The replacement ship for BLUE FIN will be RV SAVANNAH.
A contract for construction of this vessel is currently out for bid. The CALANUS
replacement is still in the design phase. Florida Institute of Oceanography has a
conceptual design for a replacement of SUNCOASTER. The new ship is planned to be
125 feet in length. More information on this ship is included in Appendix X
AGOR 26 Construction Update - Pat Dennis reported that AGOR 26 is under contract
to Lockheed Martin/Ingalls and is presently in the design phase. This ship will be a
SWATH hull form and will be operated by the University of Hawaii. A spread sheet with
comparison design criteria is included as Appendix XI. Phase I, the design phase should
be completed by 29 October 1998 and is budgeted at $1M. Phase II, the construction
phase is budgeted at $36M. Outfitting and testing will be included in the remaining
budget.
A design review meeting is planed for 17 August. The Council voiced concern that
UNOLS has not been kept abreast of the construction project nor have they been given
the opportunity to provide input. Pat reported that at this time it appears that the design
capabilities meet the Science Mission Requirements recommended by UNOLS. A "virtual
design" website has been established by Lockheed/Martin. It was suggested that UNOLS
be given access to the site so that they can keep abreast of progress on the construction.
7
FIC will be invited to review the AGOR-26 design progress at a 28 or 29 July meeting at
the Lockheed/Martin facility in Sunnyvale, CA.
Airships and Aerostats - Jim Hain (Associated Scientists at Woods Hole, Inc.) made a
presentation on airships and aerostats. A report by Jim titled Airships for Marine Mammal
Research: Evaluation and Recommendations is included as Appendix XII. Ninety Five
percent of the current activities of airships are involved in the corporate market. Four
percent are used for surveillance and less than one percent are used for research. Lighter
than air platforms are well suited for research because of their slow flight, station keeping
and stable platform. They provide an effective platform for photo and video data
acquisition, remote sensing and lowering instruments. These facilities are particularly
suitable for large mammal studies in the sea, ocean atmospheric studies, plume studies and
flying instrument test beds. Most platforms use for science to date have been provided by
commercial companies pro bono.
Jim is interested in seeking other interested investigators that might have a scientific need
for lighter than air platforms. The Council agreed to provide outreach support to the
community for solicitation of interest in lighter than air platforms. It was suggested that
Jim submit an article for the UNOLS Newsletter. Jim was asked to keep UNOLS abreast
of his progress.
2 July 1998
RVOC Safety Video - Steve Rabalais reported that production of the RVOC Safety
Video has been completed. It will be ready for distribution over the summer.
Ship Scheduling Process - Don Moller provided background on the scheduling process
and how it is evolving. In the past, the ship schedules consisted primarily of cruises with
researchers from their own respective institution. This was a simplified scheduling process
but not always the most cost effective way to do business. Now the user base has become
more broad. More agencies are involved and the panel funding decisions are earlier.
Communications have improved with the use of the Web. Also in the past, there was less
equipment that was shared by the fleet and therefore less coordination was needed. The
changing conditions have required more central coordination. Electronic ship time
requests with instant distribution has been initiated. Electronic posting of these requests
make them more accessible to schedulers. Schedules are updated and electronically
posted more frequently. Efficiencies in cruise tracks are scrutinized. Two annual
scheduling meetings followed by two schedule review meetings have given way to one
schedule review meeting in June and a general scheduling meeting followed by a review
meeting in September. Some scheduling problems remain. Late changes in schedules are
traumatic for the science parties. There is a perception that scientists are disconnected
from the process; that schedules are driven by the agencies and not the schedulers and the
process is becoming more frustrating.
8
Don proposes changes in the scheduling process. The June meeting should be delayed
until early July and be a full ship scheduling meeting followed by a review meeting.
Schedulers with local schedules that do not require coordination need not attend. The
later date will allow for more information to be available concerning funding decisions. It
would also provide NSF program managers with additional time for making funding
announcements. Schedulers should not be required to develop full schedules or cruise
tracks until most funding decisions are known. In place of a schedule the schedulers
should post a list of proposed cruises in the approximate order of anticipated timing.
Schedules would be developed at or immediately following the July meetings. The
September ship scheduling meeting would not take place and only a schedule review
meeting would held at that time.
On a related topic, the Council discussed the interchangability of ships. Scientists often
become very frustrated in instances when they are moved from one ship to another during
the scheduling process or when they do not get scheduled on the ship that they requested.
There is a perception among scientists that ships are not interchangeable. It was
suggested that additional training is needed for ship support groups to improve
interchangability of ships. One way to help remedy this problem would be to internally
swap technicians among UNOLS ships so that they can obtain a broader knowledge and
experience. It was also, commented that more definition of the cruise plan is needed after
the project is funded. This would better enable the ship operator to technically support
the cruise. The UNOLS new ship time request two-part form will actually address this
exact issue. Lastly, it was recommended that the community, particularly new PIs need
educating on the ship scheduling process. The NSF general proposal guidelines should
reference the UNOLS webpage.
Two action items resulted from the discussions on ship scheduling procedures and
interchangability of ships:
1. Don Moller was asked to prepare his proposed revision to the ship scheduling
and circulate them for further comment.
2. A "white paper" should be written on "How ships are scheduled - a guide for
novices." The paper would be posted on the UNOLS website.
UNOLS Annual Meeting - The Council made suggestions for potential keynote speakers
an presentations for the Annual Meeting.
UNOLS Town Meeting, Customer Satisfaction Survey & Long Range UNOLS
Issues/Public Outreach - Because all three agenda items addressed a similar topic they
were discussed together. Ken provided a brief update on the 12 February Town Meeting
the AGU/OSLO Conference in San Diego. The meeting was well advertised but not well
attended. It was designed to be both informational and to allow the community to express
their concerns with UNOLS. The low attendance could be construed as general
satisfaction or at least a lack of strong dissatisfaction. Those that did attend took part in a
9
friendly open discussion about the UNOLS activities. The Council encouraged continued
efforts to reach the community. These should include: periodic customer satisfaction
surveys (about every two to three years); advertise that the Council meetings are open and
the community is encouraged to attend; a round table discussion with program managers
at the Annual Meeting; the NSF inspection process should review ship assessment reports
and continue a booth at the fall AGU meeting. It was recommended that UNOLS have a
poster at the Fall AGU. It was further suggested that an agenda item for the next Council
meeting should be post cruise assessment follow-up procedures.
Don Heinrichs reported that as part of the Academic Fleet Review, a customer satisfaction
survey will be conducted. The Council agreed to postpone the development of a UNOLS
survey until after the results of NSF's survey are available. Don Heinrichs invited the
Council to provide suggestions for questions for the customer survey.
Antarctic Support Association (ASA) Logistic Support - The Council briefly
discussed ASA's possible option for a U.S. oceanographic research facility to provide the
functions of managing, planning, staffing and maintaining logistics support of PALMER
and GOULD. No decisions or conclusions were reached.
Small Boats Designated as RVs - The Council briefly discussed the recent
correspondence in the community about whether or not small boats fell within the
Research Vessel Act and if their operators required passenger licenses. It was suggested
that this issue should be passed on to George Ireland for advise.
UNOLS Office Transfer - Jack Bash provided the Council with a draft letter and
schedule for the search for a UNOLS Office host and executive secretary replacement.
The Council concurred with the letter and schedule.
UNOLS Charter Review - Clare Reimers led the discussion on the proposed changes to
the UNOLS Charter. Changes are proposed for the basic Charter and three of the
annexes. The primary thrust of the Charter changes are to allow for a more balanced
representation between non-operator and operator members and to also address the issue
of membership by consortia. The revised Charter would allow non-operator members an
opportunity to hold chair positions on the Council and its committees. The annex changes
followed this theme for the FIC annex and were general updates for the Ship Scheduling
annex and National Facilities annex.
There was discussion by the Council on the issue of consortia. The proposed revised
charter states that membership shall be by individual institution or by consortium. If a
consortium is a UNOLS member, no constituent institution of that consortium may be a
member.
It was decided that a separate vote would be taken for the consortium member issue at the
Annual meeting so _hat the more routine changes could still be made if this issue were
defeated.
10
UNOLS Council Membership - Dennis Hansel!, Chair of the nominating committee
reviewed the 1998 Council nomination process, see Appendix XIII. In February/March
1998 the committee was formed and includes Dennis, Clare Reimers and Peter Lonsdale.
A call for nominations was announced in April/May. The announcements were sent out
via the UNOLS newsletter, EOS, and letters to the UNOLS representatives and
Dean/Directors of member institutions.
Dennis presented a draft slate for the Chair, Vice Chair and Council members. It was
noted that there were no candidates for Council Chair and that Tom Royer was running
unopposed as Vice Chair. A nomination was made to nominate Bob Knox as Chair. The
final slate will be advertised at least thirty days before the Annual Meeting.
The Council recommended that the nominating process conducted this year should be the
model for future years.
CORE/UNOLS MOA - A discussion was held on the current CORE/UNOLS MOA. As
written it is very broad and probably needs to be more specific. The Council
recommended that the Chair and Executive Secretary work with CORE on possible
revisions and proposed; that the new MOA include a provision that required the two
organizations to have a working meeting at least twice a year to coordinate activities.
SEA CLIFF and ATV Retirement Plans - Pat Dennis provided the Council with the
latest information on SEA CLIFF and ATV. SEA CLIFF has been transferred to ONR
and will soon be sent to WHOI. An engineering study is proposed to the agencies to
determine how the vehicle or its parts can best be used. The decision on ATV still
remains pending. Pat also informed the Council that TURTLE has been retired and will be
transferred to either Mystic Museum or Hawaii.
Ship Scheduling Improvements - Jack Bash reported that improvements to the ship
scheduling process should be up and running in a few of weeks.
AGOR Z-drive Thruster Status - Bob Knox informed the Council on the status of the
AGOR Z-drive thrusters. Glosten has completed a study on the cause of the failures and
has provided a report. Recommendations from that report are included as Appendix XIV.
Two gears have been purchased for KNORR. The starboard gear has been replaced but
not the port. Bearings and seals were replaced on both sets of gears. ONR has funded the
purchase of two new gears for MELVILLE. Both will be installed at next dry-docking. It
was recommended that one spare port upper gear and one spare starboard upper gear be
purchased as spares for AGOR 23-25. ONR will fund this purchase. A complete lower
unit spare exist.
AGOR 25 Test and Trials Schedule - Dick Pittenger reported on the test and trials
schedule for ATLANTIS. The ship held its Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) in January
and February of this year after completing six successful months of operations. The ship
11
has been operating since the PSA. SCN money ran out in May. The tests and ship
operations have gone very well. Appendix XV provides a detailed schedule.
Applications for UNOLS Membership: An application for UNOLS membership from
the University of Minnesota, Duluth was received. The University of Minnesota, Duluth
recently acquired a vessel from the Department Of Commerce buy-back program. It has
been outfitted for oceanography (with some NSF money) and is presently operating in the
ientists have indicated an interest in using the ship. Although U. of Minn.
Great Lakes.
has applied to become a member of UNOLS they have not applied for BLUE HERRING
to be a UNOLS vessel but will be a non-operating member. The Council approved the
application and moved to forward it for vote at the Annual Meeting.
The Council recommended that the two membership requests from consortia, New Jersey
Marine Science Consortium and Southern California Marine Institute, be provisionally
advanced to the Annual Meeting for vote conditionally based on the pending charter
change.
UNOLS Brochure - Vicky Cullen of Woods Hole has been funded to publish an updated
UNOLS brochure. It should be ready in about six months.
Miscellaneous Discussions - It was suggested that agency reports be heard at the Annual
Meeting and not given at the September Council meeting. Dick Pittenger extended an
invitation for the Council to hold their next summer meeting at Woods Hole.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm.
12
APPENDIX I
6/29/98
UNOLS COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday-Thursday, July 1-2, 1998
W. Alton Jones Campus
Whispering Pines Conference Center - Sycamore Lodge
University of Rhode Island
West Greenwich, RI 02817-2158
Call the Meeting: Ken Johnson, UNOLS Chair, will call the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m., 1 July
1998.
Accept Minutes of the February, 1998 Council Meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: Ken Johnson will provide a brief summary of the UNOLS Committee
written reports and open the floor to a question/answer period. (Prior to the meeting, Committee
Chairs submitted written reports for distribution to meeting participants.) Chairs will identify any
important issues that need to be addressed further by the Council.
AGENCY and OTHER REPORTS: Reports from agency representatives on funding outlooks,
facility updates, and special projects:
Department of State - Tom Cocke
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration - CDR Elizabeth White
National Science Foundation - Don Heinrichs
Naval Oceanographic Center - CDR Jim Trees
Oceanographer of the Navy - Pat Dennis
Office of Naval Research - Pat Dennis
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education - Capt Dan Schwartz
United States Coast Guard - J. Berkson
UNOLS ISSUES:
NSF Academic Research Fleet Review - Don Heinrichs will provide a report on the June 8-10 NSF
Fleet Review Meeting and plans for the follow-on meetings in September and November.
FOFCC Meeting Report - Ken Johnson will provide a report on the 30 June FOFCC meeting.
National Ocean Conference - Ken Johnson and Jack Bash will report on the National Ocean
Conference in Monterey, CA.
Ship Scheduling Process - Don Moller will lead a discussion on ship scheduling process issues.
Interchangability of Ships - Ships in similar size classes are becoming more specialized in
capabilities and training. Transfer of cruises depending on these specialized capabilities places
an increasing burden on science parties. How should we respond - encourage cross training,
recognize explicit specialties (biogeochemistry, moorings, MGG/Swath mapping, etc.)?
UNOLS Annual Meeting - The Annual Meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, 17 September.
Suggestions for kenote presenter and agenda items will be discussed.
AGOR 26 Construction Update - Pat Dennis will provide an update on the Navy's construction of
AGOR 26, SWATH research vessel.
Airships and Aerostats - Jim Hain (Associated Scientists at Woods Hole) will report on
applications of airships (blimps) and aerostats (tethered balloons) for oceanographic research
(Enclosure 1).
Science Mission Requirements (SMR) - Larry Atkinson will review the status of SMR
development for an East Coast Research Vessel and a vessel for work in Alaskan waters.
UNOLS Town Meetings - Ken Johnson will report on the Town Hall Meeting held on 12 February
at the AGU/OSLO meeting in San Diego. Should we hold another Town Hall meeting at the
Fall AGU Conference in December, 1998?
Antarctic Support Association (ASA) Logistic Support - ASA is exploring the possible option for
a U.S. Oceanographic research facility to provide the functions of managing, planning, staffing
and maintaining logistics support of PALMER and GOULD.
Customer Satisfaction Survey - The last customer satisfaction survey was conducted in 1995. Is it
time to re-survey the community?
CORE/UNOLS MOA - Discussion on whether the CORE/UNOLS MOA needs to be revisited and
redefined.
SEA CLIFF and ATV Retirement Plans - Pat Dennis will review plans for the future of DSV
SEA CLIFF and ATV following their retirement from the Navy.
Ship Scheduling Improvements - Jack Bash will report on the progress of the improvements to the
UNOLS ship scheduling process.
AGOR Z-drive Thruster Status - Bob Knox and Dick Pittenger will review the latest status of any
AGOR Z-drive issues.
New Ship Construction - Update on Skidaway's construction of R/V SAVANNAH. Update on
plans for replacement of CALANUS.
Long Range UNOLS Issues/Public Outreach - At the last Council meeting public outreach was
identified as an area needing greater attention by UNOLS. Review recent public outreach
activities and discuss other methods for reaching out to the community.
UNOLS Office Transfer - Discussion on plans for transfer of the UNOLS Office. The current
UNOLS Office grant with the University of Rhode Island will expire on 30 April, 2000.
UNOLS Charter Review - Clare Reimers will review the recommended revisions to the UNOLS
Charter and structure as prepared by the ad hoc committee (Enclosure 2).
UNOLS Council Membership - Dennis Hansell, Nominating Committee Chair, will report on
nominations for UNOLS Chair and Council members. The terms of Ken Johnson, Tom Royer,
Dick Pittenger and Bob Wall are expiring.
Applications for UNOLS Membership :
• The University of Minnesota, Duluth has applied for UNOLS Membership. A copy of their
application is included as Enclosure 3.
• The New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium and the Southern California Marine Institute
applied for UNOLS Membership in 1997. Discussion on the status of their applications.
UNOLS Brochure - Update on plans for updating the UNOLS brochure.
Calendar for UNOLS Meetings:
MEETING
FIC
NSF Fleet Review
Ship Scheduling Comm.
Schedule Review
UNOLS Council
UNOLS Annual
RVTEC
INMARTECH '98
RVOC
DESSC
AICC
LOCATION
TBD
SIO, San Diego, CA
NSF, Arlington, VA
NSF, Arlington, VA
NSF, Arlington, VA
NSF, Arlington, VA
SIO, La Jolla, CA
SIO, La Jolla, CA
U.Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
AGU, San Francisco, CA
Avondale, LA
Adjournment
DATES
Summer, 1998
Sept 1-3, 1998
Sept 14, 1998
Sept 15, 1998
Sept 16, 1998
Sept 17, 1998
Oct 19, 1998
Oct 20-22, 1998
Nov 4-6, 1998
Dec 1998
Winter, 1998/99
APPENDIX II
=
-o
a)
a
-a
C:1- =
CouncilMeeting
0
>
C4)03•
0 73
to
cn
.17
.0
• c =
eu 6 .c •
E z.= 9' 0
.a c. c - eu •c -6 i...
@)
5 @)
C @..) c i... @•...) WI 4)
el)
a
683-5550/atkinso
@,) `631
03 [email protected]
@
,4
@
9- to
a)
V) ..■
C/1 •a.v,
c 'a
=6
=
73
.,
-.... ...., ......,
.• L.
0 e,,
=
.c
= c..)
.......
.....
N 00 N N 00
■0
V3 0 r
•-•• te1
N O •--. 0 It)VD N
■0 C;1 V?
I
I
1/40 er
TT V)
N ON
t-- ON r00 '0 Co
00 let
.tzr
00 N
kn0 0 0 0 0 0
N t•-•
N
10 kr) Tr 0 tr) "". 01 ON
N N N 'Cr N 10 r•C71 00 N N 00 •-• V1 7
'Tr
‘.0
4
•zr r-
co
.0 00
,0 00
Cts
00 3
•-■ 00 N •-•-•
str vn (NI •i•
cl)
1-1)4
i-: 0.
cri
.F.i
73
r'
■* s... ........
T.) A
: 'm
at_l in
°°
r- ...,-.
kr)
0 N.
O. -....
1...
-....eo
).,),- 1... a,
•:r trl -4- 2. o 2,
t - cs N ,--* h 00
C
,,,,„ C.) 00 00 00 ^.
4
0
N
W. a.
73 .
c„0 x vl• a.)
M E
.tr • F.) ..= c = c
, .--....
., -..,
-0
.....,. ......_
CO ,,c
.1 0 k0 r-• In kr)
C7N oo t-- " kil t '.
N .--. 00 en VI (".1
C•1 Cs1 C‘ VI e'l
VI) en 11-1
r••••
00 1•4'1 N
te)
ON VI kr)
111
co p
M
rN
00
(.1
M 00 01
Zel r-00000kr)00mkne4
r) 'et en In kr) (-; r..
r-- Tr k0
en
-.•., (..
....,--...
....•
s..-,--...
•-•
....,
--... ‘...../--,
-,--,
--...
%.0 r-- ON en t-- t--. oo r-- 00 kn r-- 0
t-- kel C■1 k0 ts- •zr Cs1 as 0 kr) •tr 0
00 VI kr) ON
kr) .o r-- en N
.--. 00
N N N N N r‘l %.0 VI rPI
IIIIIII J I • I I
1.0 1,1 •Cr en ON •er el ork -• c‘l en eV
0 kr) en - 00 t--. ON oo kn en oo en
M r- kr) t-- N 00 rei N 00 ON V) N
00
O
N
O
•zr
00
111
`.0
•zr
N
m 00 ON
00 -• CNI 00 .11' 00 I-- CI NI 71
N kr) .c)
r-‘0 en kr) •zr M vl kr1 Cs
00
trl
1./1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 1,1 0 0 0 111 0 •-■ o
.v)I...
a)
>
AFFILIATION
July 1-2, 1998
PHONE/FAX/INTERNET ADDRESS
0
a)
oO
=
-o
a)
.0
.-4
0
.
ed
.
...
d
i:,
o
= L.)
0= .:
211 -c• =
-73
c = :
y,
a3.. 2
co
..., -6
9 c 0.) =. • '5 0 03 =
> u. „.
O — - ,„1 . • u = u = no r.1
09 E 4) ..0 3 u
E a 60at
t
.-= -6 a) .= et 0
= `1
'
eel
6
=
0
471-0430/ 512-475-6338/tom
O0
:=...
297-1880x210/
>
=
-0
tO
a) 0
=
73
a)
vi
Ia)
>
to
v.)
U
oo
7) z
0
wl
a)
>1
ett CO 0
U
t),
c
"
.0 0
b-=•, U E-•
CC1
-
00
co
co
000
E s o2o
p. .-1c4 OUV)Z
11.4
a
;--;
0
Cl) col
a) la
00 03 ;/4
4,) >,
;LI
>,
c4 V) laC1.
2 .r.=
0
tr)
E 114 -gg
CC...0„,
>•- g .cu
C=CaD
u° a.)0E0 tui.
- • -=
A E--1
U
rA. A CI 4 C:1 «5•=
a
0) S ..! .0 "I"
co
• 0
C c
a .4
c
-C
C.• <
5 z•0 cl)0 0
5 0 ,
1.-(1)
— u E,
5 c. 00 ,-
•-•••■
Fl)
c
....
v)
-
0)
co
•
EA
U
UNOLS Committee Reports
July 1998
Committee report from RVTEC to UNOLS Council:
RVTEC activities for the first half of this year have concentrated mainly in two areas. The
first is the upcoming RVTECTINMARTECH 98 meeting scheduled to be held in La Jolla
on 19-22 Oct.)ber. To date all of the RVTEC meetings have involved only participants
from UNOLS institutions, NSF, ONR, NOAA, NAVO and ASA. Last year we were
joined by representatives from the Polar operations group of the Coast Guard. The 1998
meeting in La Jolla will be unique in that we will involve groups from the international
community. This effort resulted from a successful INMARTECH 96 in Southampton,
England in which technical groups from the international community gathered for a joint
meeting. Subsequent to this meeting efforts were made to include US representation and
through the efforts of the NSF a tentative decision was made to host an international
meeting here in the United States.
The subject was an agenda item at last years meeting in Seattle bringing a consensus to
host a combined meeting in 1998 at La Jolla. Through the unflagging efforts of Annette
DeSilva of UNOLS am) Woody Sutherland, Technician manager at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography the program has moved forward and final preparations are presently in
progress.
The RVTEC group will meet for a one day session prior to the international meeting
which will last for 3 days. Present plans include Workshops on several subject of interest
to Marine Technicians, a reception and poster session at the Birch Aquarium facility on
the SIO campus, a Bar-B-Que at SIO Marine Facilities and a Mexican dinner.
In other activities, RVTEC has been working closely with the U.S. Coast Guard and the
AICC in planning the scientific ice trial of the new Coast Guard icebreaker USCGC
HEALY. Because HEALY is the first USCG vessel with science written into her mission
statement it is clear that the Coast Guard is serious in making HEALY a first rate scientific
platform for Arctic operations. AICC was brought in early on to assist in the selection of
the scientific suite and RVTEC has been involved in the planning of the scientific testing
regime as well.
The Coast Guard is seriously looking at a variation of the UNOLS model for technical
staffing of the vessel. Toward this end they have, at our invitation, sent Coast Guard
Marine Science Technicians out on UNOLS vessel in order to become acquainted with the
UNOLS way of doing business.
Submitted,
John S. Freitag
Chair, RVTEC
Fleet Improvement Committee
Status Report
FIC has two SMR activities in progress at this time.
The committee to develop an SMR for a vessel suitable for work in the shallow waters of the east
coast continental shelf and bays includes Gus Paffenhofer (SKIO), Charlie Flagg (BNL), Al Hine
(SFU), Mary Scranton(SUNY, Stony Book), Clare Reimers (Rutgers), and Larry Atkinson (ODU
and Chair). The committee is working from existing SMR's and at this point each committee
member have provided their own assessment of requirements. In the next few months the SMR
will be finalized.
The second SMR is to develop a Science Mission Requirement (SMR) document for a vessel
suitable for work in the Alaska region. The committee will be lead by co-chairs Drs. Tom
Weingartner and Vera Alexander, both from the University of Alaska. Other members include
George Hunt (UC Irvine), John Christensen (Bigelow Laboratory), Larry Atkinson (ODU), and
Jim Meehan (NOAA/NMFS). The Alaska SMR committee has a more difficult task as it must
consider not only the needs of general oceanographic research in Alaska waters but also ice
strengthening and fisheries research. A draft plan should be ready by December.
DEep Submergence Science Committee Report - June 1998
Submitted by Mike Perfit, Chair
Operations on ATLANTIS since the last PSA at the beginning of this year have been
going very well. Some of the major problems that were plaguing the new ship were
addressed during the PSA....others will continue to be worked on over the next year.
DESSC was made aware of the operators plans for upgrading the ATLANTIS in the
coming months (e.g. further work on the HVAC, propulsion control systems, consistent
lab power supply, crane upgrade, noise abatement). The operators and DESSC will work
together to get input from the science community to prioritize these upgrades. The next
major shipyard period is in two years.
ALVIN and ROV work has been very successful. Bottom time with ALVIN has
increased (avg. 5.2 hrs). A number of advances with imaging, mapping and navigation
have been made with Jason. The WHOI operators have continued to work on upgrades to
the vehicles that the community requested and were funded through the federal agencies.
WHOI is continuing to work on the data logging and navigation systems, video upgrades,
scanning sonar, a "virtual ALVIN" computer model and a ring laser gyroscope. WHOI
has also funded a steerable elevator for Jason that will be tested later this summer.
At the suggestion of DESSC, the WHOI operators have instituted a new "Science
Liaison" position to help facilitate cruise planning and to act as a science coordinator.
They are in the process of searching for an assistant coordinator and staff assistant now.
Scheduling for ALVIN and the ROV's for '99 and beyond is beginning. There is again a
good deal of proposal pressure for the traditional "yo-yo" regions (JdF-N EPR) but more
proposals are coming in for S. EPR , Atlantic and Gulf of Alaska. NOAA/NURP plans to
have 21 dives in the N Pacific in 1999. DESSC has had some success in developing global
deep submergence initiatives (SW Pacific, Indian Ocean).
WHOI and DESSC are still waiting to learn about the final disposition plans of
SEACLIFF. The operators at WHOI submitted a proposal to the fed. agencies to do an
engineering study regarding the potential uses of SEACLIFF and costs involved. This
proposal is in the process of being revised at present.
DESSC has started to write a "White Paper" that will begin to address the future needs of
deep submergence science and deep submergence science initiatives beyond 2000. Of
particular interest was the role of ROV's and AUV's and how deep they will need to dive
in order to complete the proposed science objectives. This document will be a precursor
to wider community involvement and discussions regarding the development of new
facilities in the near future. These community meetings may take place starting in the early
part of 1999.
M. Perfit has completed his three year term as DESSC chair and Patty Fryer was
nominated to replace him by the committee. In addition, three members of the committee
(including Patty) are rotating off and nominations to replace them were given to M. Perfit.
He is in the process of contacting them to see if they are interested.
AICC Report to Council
1. Funding for HEALY
Although the AICC has not yet taken an activist role in working to secure long-term
funding for HEALY science logistics, the Chair is aware of some discussions which have
taken place by various parties regarding the possibility of using congressional funding
through ,he rational Ocean Partnership Program to provide such support to the
Department of Transportation. This is a quite different approach than another concept
that has been discussed, namely of achieving seagoing science logistics parity between
Arctic and Antarctic oceanography programs at NSF/OPP. As noted, the AICC is not
involved at this time, and is simply awaiting information or advice on either matter. As far
as is known to the AICC, support for even a significant fraction of the 240 days per year
that is conceived for HEALY operations is not yet in place.
2. 1998 Western Arctic SOO program
An SOO cruise now underway in the western Arctic was preceded by the planned
sequence of announced opportunity, assessment of proposals to participate for logistics
suitability and compatibility, notification of PIs (none were turned down outright),
selection of a Chief Scientist, and then leaving the program to the Coast Guard and
participants. Earlier notice (due out soon) is expected for 1999.
An incident at sea in which radioactive materials may have been transported and brought
on board without required notifications and documentation is now being investigated by
the Coast Guard. The AICC has recommended that the Coast Guard be guided in
handling these matters by existing UNOLS policies and procedures.
3. "SHEBA' SOO program
A late-breaking possibility for a second 1998 Science of Opportunity cruise (during
August 1998) surfaced during late January 1998, with the option raised of some
association with the SHEBA program. But the SHEBA program office made it clear that
they would prefer what amounted to straight logistics support (crew rotation and
equipment transfers) to a science-oriented "SOO" mission. (Bunk space limitations on the
Polar class icebreakers mean that the vessel in effect cannot do both science and crew
rotation on the same trip, without transfers at a port stop.) In the end, due to numerous
uncertainties the choice of how to proceed was left to the Coast Guard and no formal
announcement of opportunity to participate was issued by the AICC.
4. HEALY science systems testing
Mostly due to outstanding work by John Freitag (UNOLS RVTEC) and Jack Bash, a
science systems testing program for USCGC HEALY is rapidly taking shape. This is
science-oriented testing, and differs substantially from the builder's-type tests that are part
of construction acceptance. An announcement of opportunity was broadcast, all tests
were subscribed without controversy, the UNOLS Office solicited actual subcontract
proposals, and a $500k proposal was submitted to NSF to cover the testing of the
indicated systems.
5. Long coring from HEALY
A major -ecl!-ring issue has to do with details and capabilities of the HEALY's core
handling system. Community input result in a shift in the maximum core length
specification to 30 m, necessitating, if provided, a number of expensive modifications
which at times could interfere with other science operations. A good bit of e-mail traffic
continues about this
issue.
6. MST staffing strategy
The AICC has reviewed and commented upon a Marine Science Technician staffing
strategy proposed by the Coast Guard for USCGC HEALY. The plan was an excellent
start, although two primary concerns arose out of the AICC review: adequate provisions
for tech support for true 24-hour operations and the training and science-time availability
of the technicians.
7. HEALY science systems outfitting
An ongoing effort of the AICC is to clarify the science systems, including spares and
accessories, to be delivered with USCGC HEALY, and to recommend to the Coast Guard
a prioritized "wish list" to eventually bring the ship into line in this regard with the large
UNOLS vessels. This ranges from spare CTD systems to an isotope van.
8. 1999 (and beyond) SOO programs
The first phase of the new Shelf-Basin Interactions initiative may bring unprecedented
interest in using Coast Guard vessels for Science of Opportunity missions. This appears
(at first glance) to derive partly from a much lower level of intended/funded ship support
for this phase of SBI by NSF relative to the many scientists who for whatever reason
anticipate sufficient research funds (from whatever sources) to participate, but without
ship funds. At any rate, the straightforward process that lead to the 1997 and 1998 SOO
assessments may not be sufficient to handle demand during the SBI program.
Report from the RVOC Committee Vice Chair - Steve Rabalais
The 1998 RVOC meeting will be hosted by the University of Hawaii on 4-6 November. A
tentative agenda will be circulated in July and will include:
- UNOLS Reports and Committee Updates
- Agency (NSF, Navy, NOAA, etc.) Reports
- Special Reports to include presentations from operators of foreign vessels,
and updates on new vessels and conversions
- A review of the charter experience on the EWING presented by Paul Ljunggren.
- One afternoon will be dedicated to seminars relevant to operators. Two topics
under consideration at this time are:
Option 1: STCW Awareness Training( ABS Seminar)
The impact of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on the
Training and Certification of Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Issues to be discussed
include transitional provisions, certification, new requirements and various training
information.
•
ISM
(
ABS or P& H Marine Associates or others to make a presentation)
Option 2:
Over view of the International Safety Management(ISM) Code. What are the
requirements of the ISM Code? How do you become certified and who can issue
the certificates? What kind of audits are required? Who does this apply to research
vessels? What are the implications of being certified and not being certified with
the increased emphasis on port state control? How do you go about
implementing the ISM Code?
- Marine Superintendents round table discussion
RVOC Committee Reports:
Safety - The Safety Committee met on 10 June to review a draft version of the
Science Safety Video under production be Jamestown Marine Services. The film,
with an Introduction by Dr. Robert Gagosian, was shot on board the R/V
ENDEAVOR with special effects and graphics provided by Jamestown Marine.
After minor editing corrections, as recommended by the Safety Committee, the
final version will be ready for distribution on July 3. Master copies will be provided
to the UNOLS office and each UNOLS Operator. UNOLS will retain the right to
copy and distribute the film as they deem appropriate. The Safety Committee was
very pleased with the rough draft and felt that with revisions the film will provide
valuable information to the scientists using our ships.
The Committee also reviewed their progress with current revisions to the RVOC
Safety Standards. All chapters are complete except Chapter 4 - Stability. After
some discussion it was determined that the majority of this section, as it exists, is
not relevant to the context of the Standards and will be removed. A condensed
version of stability, as it pertinent to the operation of an academic RN, will be
provided by Joe Coburn. The final copy will be available for review by RVOC and
UNOLS before the 1 January 1999 deadline.
A discussion of STCW regulations and their application to U.S. academic RN's
followed. New interim rulings from the US Coast Guard are not clear as to how
the new IMO standards are to be applied beyond commercial vessels. This in
conjunction with existing ambiguities in U.S. code governing the operation of
uninspected (undocumented) research vessels moved the Committee to consider
addressing this issue through more direct discussion. A letter of intent is being
prepared and will be circulated through RVOC after review by the Safety
Committee. This letter will announce the Committees intentions to investigate,
through independent council, if necessary the intended application of recent IMO
rulings as implemented through the U. S. Code. While this investigation will focus
on the new guidelines it is anticipated that the status of uninspected vessels relative
to existing regulations will be addressed.
In addition to the developing the Science Safety Video and revising the RVSS the
Safety Committee has been asked by the U.S. Coast Guard Maintenance and
Logistic Command, Pacific (Vessel Specification Branch) to review the Handling
Hazardous Waste Shipboard procedures to be used on the Polar Class vessels
and the HEALY. The review is in progress and the Committees report will be
forwarded to the Coast Guard before the end of next month.
APPENDIX IV
Charge/Operating Days
(1995-1996-1997-1998-1999)
1000
1996
Total
Total
Total
Proj't
333
93 '
315
279
297
80 '
246
185'
273
284
308
288
214
272 '
215 '
263
229 '
299
277
332
330
0'
304
214 •
269
175'
228
122
195
240
187
271
145
186
147
219
144
174 '
168
304
198
214
201
184
202
259
209
284
199
182
158"
149
169
221
247
281
226
232
143
61
136
158
213
225
223
Alpha Helix
Cape Hatteras
Cape Henlopen
Longhorn
Pelican
Pt. Sur
Sea Diver
Sproul
Weatherbird
144
175
198
72
182
164
180
145
154
73
0
185
130
201
118*
132
155
167
118
221
206
46
206
188
105*
182
151
172
205
195
63
244
193
133
172
134
138
150
185
45
184
193
48
126
120
Days
4586
4011
4733
4699
4017
Barnes
Bluefin
Calanus
Laurentian
Urraca
77
75
48
91
0
86
96
50
72
0
126
82
111
44
0
119
95
167
146
173
103
135
111
215
109
4877
4315
5096
5399
4690
Total
A-II
/
Atlantis
Ewing
Knorr
Melville
Revelle
Thompson
Edwin Link
Endeavor
Gyre
Moans Wave
New Horizon
Oceanus
Seward Johnson
Wecoma
3rand Total
Days
319
310
350
297
* Overhaul or partial service
Note: Based on data available on 26 June '98
7/1/98 - DAM
LARGE SHIP CHARGE DAYS
(by Agency & Year)
1998
920
85.8
1997
1018
65.6
59.2
1999
816
56.3
84
5.2
20
1.5
88
5.7
53
3.4
114
7.9
NOAA Days
"Ye
20
1.2
25
1.9
89
5.7
49
3.2
211
14.6
NAVO Days
"Ye
0
0
0
0
184
213
224
11.8
13.7
15.5
OTHER Days
134
173
11.2
320
20.6
74
8.3
141
10.8
5.1
1609
1310
1552
1555
1449
1995
NSF Days 1371
"Ye 85.2
1996
1124
ONR Days
%
TOTAL Days
7/1/98 - DAM
UNOLS FLEET CHARGE DAYS
(by Agency & Year)
1995
NSF Days 3249
% 66.6
1996
2738
63.5
1997 ,
2909
57.1
1998
2708
50.2
1999
2645
56.4
ONR Days
403
8.3
454
10.5
499
9.8
416
7.6
472
10.1
NOAA Days
%
354
7.3
145
3.4
378
7.4
619
11.5
506
10.8
NAVO Days
0
0
0
0
373
7.3
449
8.3
436
9.3
OTHER Days
%
872
17:9
978
22.6
937
18.4
1207
22.4
631
13.4
TOTAL Days 4877
4315
5096
5399
4690
7/1/98 - DAM
APPENDIX V
,0 e e
0..
h. 0 0 I R
ee
rs- N CO.
6 C\I ',"*
CIS
C')
,-
4E'
a)
U
a)
a.
i
lw
tit,
I
1,--
ti''
E
0 N- CO
LO N
cr; , 4
, .-- N
,:t
.
co
eo
c
;
..1
r...
0
2
o CD CO CM
Lt)
0
0) CI
n:
co
tri g
N ,111
NIO
co
cm
al
44
T
t
1IFtr;
i
Li)
1co c.i
0
.-..at
.r.
CD
N
cNi
in
LO CO
N. *-:
¶-4
NW
t
410
a)
0
C
a)
0
(/) 0
0 0
to 0 0 c
O-cc0
•c =
5 u)
0 C
CCI
0
cD
S E "Fd
2 :it' L11 0
%.;
.0
1.C2
CCI
a)
u)
a)
CC
06
0
4)-
E
as
4e'
a) g
et:
0
C.,
co
8 c
8 :c
C
9,c a)
--
2
e; =
U3
C = C cro C
C 03 0 . 0:1
0
as 0 ca
0 0 a 0 13 0
(JO =0 CtIO
0 in LI-
PAHeinr ich1OVERHEADS\UNOLS overincads2.doc
I'm
ci 1..,-
*MRE account includes $21.0Mfor Polar Cap Observatory
41
4N
a;
i..
w
•
ae
ge
N 0
IP. IP.
4 0co
O
44
en
0-
19. r‘stR 14 8 Zr" 8
4 RI r`e
4 2 1`,E °
CJI
0
:4;
2 I c; (9 S ti
cth g ij
r: s 4 01
;17 cf)
P. CV
2 it
ef;
•
r:
c■ g
rz.
r7:
g co oi
2
(re.
.0
.g.g
to
CL
E.
•15
L
3 XX
2 cZ 0_ 0
PrVicinrich\OVERHEADS\UNOLS overheads2.doc
(figures in millions)
e
e
C(Nir) Cr3aeg e
APPENDIX VI
APPENDIX VII
I
COAST GUARD AGENCY REPORT
UNOLS COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1-2, 1998
1. USCGC HEALY UPDATE
DELIVERY: Feb 99 is still the official delivery date from Avondale Shipyards.
Unofficially, some in the Coast Guard doubt that Avondale can make the February 1999
delivery date, which is crucial to the summer '99 ice trials schedule. The Coast Guard
expects to be able to provide a more firm projection by the August Ice Trials Meeting. Ice
trials planning has been progressing extremely well. John Freitag (UNOLS RVTEC Chair)
and Terry Tucker (CRREL) have been designing much of the science and ice trials
protocols and have been doing a superlative job.
CORING UPGRADE: Funding has been secured by the Coast Guard Icebreaking
Program to proceed with the development of the 30-meter coring system on HEALY.
Woods Hole (Mr. Jim Broda) has been negotiating with the HEALY Project staff on the
design, which has been submitted to the Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee for
review and approval.
RESEARCH FUNDING: There is some concern within the Coast Guard over the
apparent lack of a coordinated science plan for HEALY once the ship becomes
operational. Of equal concern is what seems to be the consensus among potential users
that there will be no additional funds budgeted to support researchers on the ship. The
Coast Guard's impression is that there is a "Field of Dreams" approach ("build it and they
will come"). While this may be true, top managers feel that there should be a fully
articulated plan supporting a proposal for dedicated funds to put the government's
investment to full use.
2. POLAR ICEBREAKER UPDATE
POLAR SEA deployed on 29 April for a three-month Arctic West Summer cruise. In
May she participated as the command and control platform for the largest
U.S./Russian/Japanese oil spill exercise to date off of Sakhalin Island. After picking up a
15-member science party in Nome she proceeded to the Arctic for 20 days of multidiscipline science operations. She will complete her assignments by assisting the Canadian
Coast Guard with a crew change at the SHEBA site after the ice runway alongside the
CCGS DEGROSEILLIERS becomes unsuitable for fixed wing aircraft caused by
deterioration due to warm temperatures. POLAR SEA will deploy on Operation DEEP
FREEZE in November.
POLAR STAR will be departing for an Arctic trip in la' July. She too will provide
again in early September. In
transport for SHEBA scientists and crew in early August
between she will be conducting a science of opportunity cruise.
3. OMB ICEBREAKER REIMBURSEMENT PROPOSAL)
As part of the OMB budget passback, the CG was instructed to seek full reimbursement
for operating and capitol costs of the icebreakers from non-DOD users. This would
require legislative changes to be submitted in the CG Omnibus Act of 1998, which
contains a number of legislative proposals. The proposed Omnibus Act is currently held
up in DOT f-r a variety of reasons. Once the bill clears DOT, OMB will put it into
interagency clearance.
The Icebreaking Program's response to this OMB mandate was to point out that the
government maintains a fleet of icebreakers for a variety of reasons including: (1) the need
to regularly project U.S. presence in the Polar regions in general; (2) search and rescue
(the GREENWAVE casualty stands as an excellent example); (3) marine environmental
protection in the high latitudes, particularly with the ever increasing focus on Arctic oil
reserves; (4) DOS-led Antarctic Treaty inspections; (5) support of research; and (5) for
any future national contingency. For these reasons, the Coast Guard has gone on record
as recommending that the incremental reimbursement system presently in place be
continued as the most equitable one. It has also been pointed out that a substantial
increase in rates by the Coast Guard would make these ships uncompetitive with other
oceanographic platforms and would result in a net decrease in recoupment of operating
costs.
APPENDIX VIII
•
▪
•
cu
$... 0
al -4-.
0 cA
CA 0
.'7)
—
ct
Q
‘..
=
ct
a) c-i--• 0
.!:.,
=
-
0
$...
`u .2 cl
a
al
a.)
c
0
O
C
I-
u
7/
4-)
Q
-0
= cil
CU —4
Terms of Reference
>
0
I-, .4=
al
LI.,
. EA
(1)
c • —
"cf
E
0
1...
• —
-0
C
• ..
ct
CA
4.)
$-+
.r.
al
CL)
1..•
CA
$...
ca..
to
..=
Q
..= .0—
.4-.
ct
=
al
I.
Ct
C.)
4)
CA
ct
1) c
cy)
0
-0
I.) C.)
..=
c
tu
c.. C.)
cd
Q
t140 ..=
v)
C:14
C.)
4)
tO
ct
Ca.
E
—
''
0
4-1
• 1:"
.. L.,
tu
et
v) -Z vi
..c
c)
C.)
0
cn
4)
CL,
ev) ..0
a)
c..)
CA
v)
0
= CCS *71
>
0
0
CA
.
..:. 011
1
c.)
a)
—
0
5
ct
a.)
v)
ct
cu
s...
c4-,
i..,
tu Q =
•—, =
c4-4
-4.-)
ti)
4j vi
ti)
-4-, E 2
t
= 4-. 7.,. v,
= • ■S.1
a)
E
0
o 7::
c..) z
4-. --, tu o
1.-•
-:_=4,._..
0 6
c
a)
..0
t)
0 r414
"
C
..)
.i.
..0
8 cA
g
0
c
C
CA
0- cz$
CA
,.= . —
= ci) 7:1 cu
=— E
Q ,-.
(-)
ct .. eLc
cn al 0
=
(L) s. —
>
cu
CG
(1)
cu
u..
• —
t
=
o
cr
C1M
v■IN
I
#cii
1..
1)
L.,
Ti
t a'
c
s.
o
(1) ci)
> ..=
"0
3.4
a)
v)
• (1.)c--.
—
CD
4-) ...-■
Ca. cu
cd
cid $."
.....1
06
..= (1)
CA $_,
CA
4.)
Ct
4-4
1•■•1
•_, c...• " _,
$.
v)
c
cu
ct 4-!
C ,
I) -Ia'
0.
cit
"c:,
t.„
.
c)
vi
.7)
=
Czt
=
cd
(A
c
-0 al
tx0
..sZ
0 . —
04 1.)
>
0
• 7..
-IC
=
-0 ci) o
a
r.)
0
a)
+.,
01., 0 e--4
4.) ..0
c
0
cip
:-. • —
ct
--x
.4... 0
a) •4<
"c,0
0
ti) c.r_, c4-•
al
4.,
-e•
$9.• =
>
et0
.
c
I■o (1)
a)
!-. 01
> ;-. ..=
ti.) 1) Q
s.
c
. ...•
E-4
el)
E = Q..) =
..c
cn ,...
co
4.-..—
5 0
1, c.)
a)
a)
t
d
.
=
..0
0
cn
Cr
•
,.= 4-.
"
,..0
• ....
3..• •—•
a)
s..
eu
a) c
'-•
ci) -. a.)
c..)
i-,
a) cz
=
0.
al 1)
•
AI
N..-
p• -4-,
0
O.
C)
<
•
=
U
..=
-4— --,
a)
ct
.Q
v)
"
CG U
C.) ^Z
.E
czt
0
ct
CL.
0 c=r"
cu '71
(1)
cn
0
<•
cz9
Terms of Reference
•
C.) 0
$-• C.)
CL.
0
= = •.4=,1
•
E5
C.)
Cl•
CI) S... CS
= V t;..:
••—• CL. •47,,
c+-•
0
U
E
Trs'
1.)
C1)
C
+4
0
0 Cr...
C.) -t-+
ct m
il)
•7 —c7's ta.
= . — 0
Ca. „C
=ct >
c.) .,1'
-C3 ,..c cA
s...,
= 0 c.n
0
0 -C) =
Tz's
(L)
-0 0
I
-)
• .;
0
I) CI)
i
c'Es)
cd
a)
O cA
C1)
7:3
9
CI.
O
ct
9
•
V
Ct Cr/
V
C1.)
••—■
Cd
(1)
>
ti)
1-)
3-4
"
CD
C.)
CA
==
1.u 0 .-a)
'
..-10
.77,
' va ct
cn • .
cd 0 c.4-4
0
°
5
=
•0 CCS
'‘c7.1
-72)
s. -c, •i-71,
ct -a
ct
8..4
C a)
•v)
— 0 C,
0
"7) .4.4=4
CL)
4aj
E 4=
.i..
.
= =
as
V
..0
cn 1.... 0
4_, 0 Ct.
X c+-4 cn
„ t.)
0 =
9M
c.)
I)
(A
cn a)
4c .1) :-.
•1)
— •
> 0
o
cu
a)
o
CI,
+-a
•
H= E
Should elements of the researchfleet or its operation be recompeted?
U
v)
co.
cl
—
o c.) .c.)
t
Specific issues include:
t
•—
▪▪
▪
ct
U
=
=
=I
al
cA
• a)
— tl)
> Z
•a.)
—
t:e:
a.)
c
•—
•
a.) c.)
▪
..c
2
Ec
+-■
cn
/.., ..
• 0 Q
__,'
0.4
ct
r:1*
=
i
N
• .....
7
0
4.0
4-) Fzi =
c4
c
c-■-• a)
771
ct
0
E
=
al
= =
Terms of Reference
I-.
0 0 0
,.= LI., C
•—
0
0
a)
> C.)
--•
6. .---::
....
al
c/
9
E 1)
O
• •■••
LT.-■
-Ci,
Ci) E 7-1
t
0
I-.
•
cl -CI
.
c..) .:.g
10.•
cd
4 il 1■41.'
;•••• Ct
eu a
et)
CZN
1....
,..
, ....:5
.)
.• T
cn 5E
0
4-• 0
.-->, c..)
<14 =
•I
-‘•1
CA 0 CI
=
0 0
t4.11
C.) 4-b
v•C
4=
0 1.) "
.
c
O -z ...
•.....
ti. ct
U
2>
0 cA
t) Cl• 0 c4_,
2) ci-i
-7
,..,
-cl. $..,
cn a'
44 ct
C.4■41)(j= el)
5
=
0 0 = 0 =
7:3
.c.) a)
z 7:4:
c-.)
1.) • ,-,
,,, = ›.
•—
5
cit
E
0
7' imb
o
"s
....
CA
"1:
) •Im.)
•
C.)
6 (19 1.) to
* E=
E=
E 0 •0 ,.c,.
3
,.c
1o
i.4
cA
0 g
7:3
CA
ct:1
g 0
7:3
4a:1 7,
cn
a) (1) .s-
• cz 0 c.) czt = s.
E
= ct C•1■4
Cr
0
q-•
U 0 0 -0 0
C CU
= c=
a. 5
,,,
izi
tucr
$•••1
O
U •>
1..1 CA
1... t)
o •— -:
—. .4=-.
U co.., ••—..
• "..
>
ct
.--.
_ ct
1.) *a:
4_, a!
cA
Octu
U c..) s...
E
cA
o.
..4c—7i 2 ct = 4-.
.#.7.,
..:. a) .7.. a)
CD
"I
c..)
cid•'1"'‘
c..)C.)
c 7>
,
. I.) sa. > t, =,
2 2
1.)
aj
Z2 7;
9
(
ct CL s... czt 1...
Academic Fleet Review - Upcoming Areas to be Addressed
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION/NEEDS
• Develop questionaire for committee to address research
scientist needs, support, capabilities, improvements to system,
etc.
• Community input directly to Committee for candor.
• Involve NSF Science Resource Studies re questionaire design.
ACTION: NSF to do first draft and circulate to
Committee for comments before sending.
TIMING: ASAP to receive responses before next
meeting in September.
SHIP OPERATIONS
• Fleet history of operating institutions, ship changes, numbers,
size to get context for operations capabilities and days.
• Couple with history of days used vs days available to assist
with analysis of fleet size/use issues.
ACTION: UNOLS to provide via NSF.
* Science capabilities of fleet and their evolution. This
includes a science systems "compilation" of available
instrumentation broken out ship classes - not just a list but
capability oriented.
* "Productivity measures" and investigator days/berths
analysis with goal to better define evolution of science
capabilities, investigator productivity, etc with
changes/new ships in fleet.
ACTION: UNOLS to provide via NSF.
TIMING: Intersessional - for both items. Provide when
compiled but with target date of mid-July.
COMPARATIVE OPERATIONS
• Antarctic program systems contractor practices for science
support services. Presentation at next committee meeting - 1
hour max.- with goal to better understand possible alternative
approaches.
• Scheduling, operations, support mechanisms for science
projects used by both other US systems, e.g. NOAA and Navy,
and other countries with goal as above to better understand
alternative possibilities.
ACTION: NSF to arrange with NSF/OPP for Antarctic
input and organize data and presentation re
second items.
TIMING: Second meeting agenda.
NSF PROPOSAL TRENDS
• Overall budget trends and support from the Ocean Sciences
Division for research programs and facilities programs
including ship use as a program percentage. Include data on
total proposals submitted for ship use and related ship size
distributions and comparative success rates for seagoing
projects vs laboratory, analysis, theoretical studies with goal of
understanding factors in declining number of days at sea
sponsored by NSF.
ACTION: NSF to organize and present.
TIMING: Second meeting agenda.
FINANCIAL ANALYSES
• Provide operations and support data using standard accounting
practice with identification of fixed cost vs variable cost
parameters. Include in analyses both operatations and layups,
including for NSF explaination of practice and policy re
layups.
• Provide data/analysis of comparative operations costs for
UNOLS, NSF longterm charters in OPP, other federal
operations, commercial operations and other country
operations. Use standard accounting practice.
ACTION: NSF to obtain independent external
"financial/audit" consultant to review/obtain
required data and provide analysis.
TIMING: Progress report at second meeting. Committee
input to study at that time prior to final report
at third meeting.
■
APPENDIX IX
Total UNOLS Operating Days, Last 20 Years
6,000
u+ 5,000
co
0
a)
c
E
a)
a.
0 4,000
1980
1990
1985
Year
1995
2000
UNOLS SHIP OPERATION DAYS: 1998
SHIP/CLASS
0
Days
ratln
Days
Available
Percent
Utilization
GLOBAL/EXPEDITIONARY SHIPS
ATLANTIS
272
R. REVELLE
299
MELVILLE
229
KNORR
263
EWING
215
T.G. THOMPSON
277
TOTAL
1555
275
275
275
275
275
275
1650
94%
INTERMEDIATE/REGIONAL SHIPS
169
MOANA WAVE
174
EDWIN LINK
ENDEAVOR
158
OCEANUS
233
GYRE
131
NEW HORIZON
221
SEWARD JOHNSON
281
WECOMA
226
1593
275
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
2025
79%
193
205
172
169
739
180
180
180
180
720
103%
LOCAL/NEAR-SHORE SHIPS
244
PELICAN
58
LONGHORN
202
CAPE HENLOPEN
134
WEATHERBIRD II
149
SEA DIVER
787
95
BLUE FIN
146
LAURENTIAN
119
BARNES
167
CALANUS
173
URRACA
700
TOTAL
180
180
180
180
180
900
110
110
110
110
110
550
127%
5374
5845
92%
POINT SUR
CAPE HATTERAS
ALPHA HELIX
R. SPROUL
TOTAL
FLEET TOTALS
87%
UNOLS PROJECTED 1998
OPERATIONS SUPPORT
AGENCY
$M
OA
NSF
28,526 53
NAVO
5,337
10
ONRJNRL
3,170
6
NAVY LABS
1,153
2
NAVY POSTGRAD
113
0
NOAA
5,407 10
INST/STATE
4,554
8
INDUSTRY
2,549
5
INTERNATIONAL
517
1
472
1
MMS
222 0
USGS
DOE
ARPA
1,650
ALL OTHERS
3
■■■•=11=1,
Tota I
53,690
APPENDIX X
FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY
830 First Street South
St. Petersburg. Flonda 33701
Telephone (813) 553-1100
Fax (813) 553-1109
June 23, 1998
Dr. Jack Bash
Executive Secretary
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS)
P.O. Box 392
Saunderstown, RI 02874
Dear Jack:
Per our conversation at the National Oceans Conference earlier this month, I write to inform
you of our plans to replace the R/V Suncoaster with a new coastal oceanographic ship. While
our R/V Bellows (71 ft.) continues to provide excellent service primarily as an educational
platform for graduate and undergraduate students, the R/V Suncoaster (100 ft.), a 35 year-old,
former oil field supply vessel, is increasingly unable to serve the expanding technological
capabilities of Florida's universities and agencies. Last year, we obtained the commitment of
President Betty Castor of the University of South Florida (USF), our administrative home, and
Chancellor Adam Herbert of the State University System (SUS) to work with us and the
Legislature to fund design and construction of a new ship.
As a Type I Institute of the SUS as well as a member of UNOLS, the FIO will work
cooperatively with UNOLS operators as well as other institutions in the region. We intend to
meet all UNOLS requirements with the new vessel and will keep our options open with
respect to its future operational associations.
For your information; I enclose the material that we are using to define the vessel and our
mission requirements at this time. We will keep UNOLS informed as our plans proceed. I
will personally appreciate your comments at any time.
Sincerely,
RECEWED
JuAz3 1998
cc.
Dr. Larry Atkinson, UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee
FIO Executive Committee
Betty Castor, President USF
Dr. Thomas Tighe, Provost USF
Dr. Adam Herbert, Chancellor SUS
mei GSM
1. nil ervin rit Fbaldit bittrida State '1st ertfrt Flartda .44.11 C. tut ercirt 1..tuterttrt nr Small Finnda Florida Atlunru C. nil emn
tin er ,trt ..t ttett Flta-ftla
I nftrrvirt
C'entral FInrtda
'nit ervirt ,.t
%h am, Ro,entnet S. inttn ..t tlartne t utu .Annophent.
arrIt
Fl,rfau Internanottui 1...ntlercirt FInrnia .)ea Grant Ct ,fle::: .
tence FI,,rfait De ..,artntent at Ent frnmnental Pron.( mat F4.ricla Marini' Rerart
1
Proposal of the Florida Institute of Oceanography
A New Coastal Oceanographic Ship
for Research and Education
What is the need for a scientific and educational research vessel in Florida?
Florida is the fourth most populated state in the nation with a rapidly expanding coastal human
population. It has the longest and most complicated coastline in the contiguous U.S., the largest
underwater continental shelf, one of the largest tourism industries, nationally-prominent fisheries,
and the only coral reef— the third largest in the world. Florida is one of the few states in the
nation which is developing an ocean policy. The key elements of this policy, defined by
cooperation of Florida's governmental and educational institutions, are to monitor and understand
the detrimental effects of human activities and to manage them for the long-term health of the
coastal ocean and to sustain the quality of life that has made Florida famous.
Socially and biologically, Florida is a part of the Gulf of Mexico and the greater Caribbean Sea.
Many of Florida's universities have students and faculty from Latin America and the Caribbean
and have strong interests in program development in the region. The USF, for example, has
just hired a new director of international programs for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Florida is connected to the Caribbean region through ocean currents which sweep larvae and
pollutants across the Caribbean Sea to the Gulf, the Florida Current and the Gulf Stream.
Florida's lobster industry depends for it annual replacement on larvae originating in the
Caribbean. Pollution by organic pesticides such as DDT, long banned in the U.S.. but used
freely in Latin America may be transported to the state by ocean currents. At a number of
levels, our state and national interests and future are wound up in the Caribbean.
Over the past decade Florida has led the nation in the application of science to the practical
management of its coastal ocean. The Everglades Restoration combined with the recently
declared Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary are the most complicated. expensive. and
politically contentious attempts in our history to manage human behavior for the sustainable use
of the environment. These projects will be high profile in the state and national consciousness
and budget for the next two decades. During the same period. Florida's universities have
increased tremendously in scientific expertise and technological capacity. reaching parity with
the leading institutions in the nation. Florida's institutions and agencies are a major source or
state-of-the-art innovations in research and education and of students who will be the scientists
and resource mangers of tomorrow.
2
Unfortunately, Florida has lagged behind in developing ocean-going facilities to match this
growing research and technological expertise. The principal research vessel of the Florida
Institute of Oceanography (FIO) serving these needs, the R/V Suncoaster, is a 35 year old oil
field supply ship which was seized for running marijuana from Colombia, pressed into service
by the FIO in 1982, and slowly modified over the past 15 years. While it has served well. it's
limited capabilities have made it the weak link in coastal ocean research and education and its
age has made refit economically unfeasible.
What is a research vessel?
A research vessel, like a building for science or engineering, is a technologically highly
specialized facility. Ideally it is specifically designed to provide maximum flexibility in the
handling of a wide variety of scientific gear, under highly variable sea conditions, 24 hours a
day, while still providing for the safety and comfort of its crew, many of whom are students
with limited experience on the ocean.
Why not refit a vessel?
Ships are minor miracles of engineering and architectural design which compress high tech
features into Eight spaces for specific purposes such as pleasure, speed, load-carrying capacity,
and passenger transport. The design decisions .that are made to serve these various purposes
create a unit of welded steel that cannot be easily or economically re-arranged or converted to
serve other purposes. For the same reasons we do not easily turn, say, a gymnasium into a
laboratory.
The R/V Suncoaster, the larger of the FTO's two ships, was designed to carry drill pipe and
drilling mud to offshore oil platforms. Below its decks there are huge tanks which take up space
which cannot be economically or effectively converted to scientific or educational use. Thus.
while the ship functions to serve education and research, it carries this original design limitation
to the detriment of its overall mission.
Yachts are often offered to educational institutions through customs seizures or by their owners
for tax write-offs. The lavish use of space on a yacht for comfort and recreation, combined with
limited load carrying capacity and stability, makes the effective conversion of a yacht for
scientific and educational purposes an expensive, long-term proposition. which never lives up
to initial expectations in spite of the best intentions. The R/V Hernan Cones. recently sold by
the DEP. is a case in point. In spite of the best efforts of many people and extensive
modification. the ship. built as a yacht for diving trips. never operated effectively as a research
vessel. It is safe to say that there has never been a yacht conversion to a research ship that `:as
been satisfactory.
3
Why not obtain a research ship from another agency?
There are few existing research ships available that would serve Florida. The NOAA fleet, once
numbering over 20 ships, is mostly too old, or the ships are too large to be suitable. The
several small NOAA ships are aging and designed for many more crew than is economically
feasible for a university-based operation.
What will it take to build a research ship in Florida?
Support of the Florida Legislature
The FIO though its existing program has had a impact in every corner of the state. We have
significant research support in place in a variety of locations. The "Team Florida" approach
forged by the new ship and the advanced capabilities afforded will attract new funding to state
institutions.
Support of Florida's Universities and Agencies
The FIO is a consortium of the key ocean science and education institutions and agencies in the
state. A new ship has been an agenda item for a number of years.
Agency Partnerships
The key to operating a ship over the long term is income from a full operating schedule of about
250 days per year. We believe that between Florida's universities and agencies. local and
regional educational programs, and federal agency ship need, such a schedule can be maintained
over the long term, significantly "amortizing" the cost to build the vessel.
Estimated design parameters (attached) and costs
A ship of the appropriate overall design parameters and capabilities ( attached) can be built :n
Florida for a total cost of $10 million, including design. construction. outfitting. and
modification of support facilities.
Z tt
0 o)
w L;
Lu ,
oE
I- FJ
CL 0
LL1
0 1
Z cc
0
0
I-LL
<
CC
0
1 1 1
VESSEL COMPARISON
Suncoaster
New Ship
Length
Beam
Draft
Bow Thruster
Lab, main
Lab, chem
Lab, wet
Satellite communications,
navigation and integrated
data system
102'
24'
8'
None
350 sf
None
50 sf
125'
32'
8'
200 HP
400 sf
130 sf
150 sf
None
Full
capability
Electronic lab
Study area
Science storage below
Science storage main deck
Freezer/refrigerator
Main deck work area
Main deck length
Fume hoods
Van capability, main deck
Van, 01 deck
Fuel capacity
Water capacity
Endurance
Crew
Scientists
None
None
None
None
125 cf
600 sf
27' port and stb
None
One 8 x 20
None
17,500 gals.
8,500 gals.
15 days
5
12
60 sf
120 sf
850 cf
800 cf
400 cf
970 sf
28' prt, 38' stb
Two x 20
One 8 x 20
30.000 gals.
15.000 zals.
30 days
18
DRAFT CONCEPT DESIGN
•
11
APPENDIX XI
O
C
0
•
0
O
O
CV
approx 440LT
Main deck:
10m or 5% of
water depthin SS3
Unrestricted Ops SS6
ea
a)
0
01
CH 0
"r7
CD w
co o
N
a
.0
co
-J
C
14.8kts at MCR
12 kts at cruise
ui
35 plus 23 crew
co
40 plus 29 crew
g
approx 630 sq ft
O
O
co y
8
a.
t41 CD NCO
E c
c
1.6
E
=
c
cu
o
o
coO
v-
C
a)
a)
11.1
0
$39M (est., 1985-87 $$$)
15,000-17,000 cu ft
N Ce)
approx 30,000 cu ft
(1)
not defined
-te
CO 0 0
0 0
•
0
CO
C
Lc;
v01
(.9
Sail Away Price
8
0
Science Storage
C4
50 days at sea
E-4
aff
U
"+ or -"50 meters in SS6
0
Science Payload
Station Keeping
0
Unrestricted Ops SS6
fti
(paper design)
U)
Fully Operational SS6
AGOR SWATH
7/9/98da3.2
•
N CO N
Cr; CV to
N T1
2 2
o
a 2
o r-0
APPENDIX XII
Lightship A-60+
Lightship A-150
'kol as.* isi-r:;,7
Skyship 600
Figure 1. A new generation of airships is available for scientific research missions. Capabilities
and costs can be matched to mission requirements and funding levels. The types of airship
include: (top) The Lightship A-60, a 132 ft, 2000 m3 helium volume ship carrying 1 pilot and
2 scientists for 4-6 hr flights; (middle) the Lightship A-150, a 165 ft, 4500 m3 helium volume
ship carrying 1-2 pilots and 4-5 scientists for 8 hr flight days; and (bottom) the Skyship 600, a
194 ft, 6000 m3 helium volume ship carrying 2 pilots and 4-5 scientists for 8-10 hr flight days.
Figure 2. Aerostats, or tethered balloons, are also emerging as scientific instntment platforms.
Still and video cameras can be remotely operated and images downlinked. In this example, a
radio-telemetry antenna is carried aloft to increase range and data continuity when tracking right
whales in both calving and feeding habitats. This study, recently initiated will also evaluate cost
reduction of both costs and possible behavioral impacts on the animal (relative to tracking from a
vessel).
.
ctl
-5
.—
E
0
an
F,
• Z$
c.) "
o
V
COST/FLTHR
research vessels and
•
O
Cn"
\ZD
c.)
t ;1
•5 °
O
1)
U
0
2
0
O
4-)
g
c/)
.?.. >
0
CD
O
C>
O
e-4
'4=
ct
■
46
00
.5
(.03
O
N
69-
c.) -ad 0
.5 -0
E
a, 8
`1)
C
00
an
o
C.) 1_, 4-, (44
tr)
kr)
,4
c
(0)
Q
g
o
a) 5'
-.0
0 X al.
a)
ad
al
f=1, co)
C/2
C/2
4.)
N
Conventional Aircraft
g
N
N
cr)
\CD
4.)
vi
cis
not
—,
F
a
tr)
4rD
\
0
kr)
Interface Ecoblimp
Lightship A-60+
Lightship A- 150
[contracted] Cessna-337
NOAA Twin Otter
NOAA P-3
2
00
CG HH-60J Helicopter
"
31
4.1 CD
7.4
cts
0:1 "
L
a
z
N
[contracted] A bel-J
V.
WHOIAtlantis
ax)
g
NOAADelaware II
4-4
0
SLOW FLIGHT
E--11
z0
cn
H
REMOTE SENSING
LOWERED INSTRUMENTS
AIR-DROPPABLE SENSORS
STABLE PLATFORM
z
1-p:
w
• ••
LIGHTER-THAN-AIR PLATFORMS
Atmospheric plume studies — NOAA ARL
DoD Projec ts (radar etc.) — Army/Air Force
Whale research — ASWH, NMFS
Manatee research — Fla DEP
CURRENT LTA USE
E
a)
O
c14
0
a)
olympic games
Surveillance
•
•
•
•
H
cn
Z
0
W
A
PROOF-OF-CONCEPTESTABLISHED
CAPABILITIES
Since 1990
W
H
Station-Keeping Ability
4
Scale
Addressing logistically difficult ocean science problems requires matching the platform to
the problem. The proposed project maintains that airships have a capability that is distinct
from, yet complementary to, that of aircraft, ships, buoys, and satellites. Airships offer a
combination of perspective, resolution, flexiblity, and station-keeping ability that may prove
valuable to a wide range of ocean science problems.
PB92-128271
AIRSHIPS FOR MARINE MAMMAL RESEARCH:
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
James H. W. Hain
Associated Scientists at Woods Hole
June 1991
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
Airships for Marine Mammal Research:
Evaluation and Recommendations
James H. W. Hain
Associated Scientists at Woods Hole
Woods Hole, MA
A Report to the Marine Mammal Commission
Contract No. T68108863
June 18, 1991
ii
Form
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
ApOrOved
OMB No 07 04-0188
♦ ■ MQ oat. to,""
148r:n ,Z evit
P.a.,' moon ,a CVO., •VtnifCCI•e<I, On Ot .n10 ,,n/ItiOn , PSInalf0 tO avit.19. , nGur De, ,rsoor$e ■ nciucimq trot tn..", •0, resn...,n0 ■ nSINICI-1,1
re........ric TN" z0444-Den p "'lc...4cm, s.,,,, co,,,,,,,,, ,,,,cisr,,,,,1 Inn byre, i,,,,,,te c, ..„, 0 ,,, ...ct .,, ,.%
gatfte,,,,o .no ,...-T. , n, n0 Me Oat. fnP•e0eC Inc COMC.Clino Ina
comm,on 0 ,,,,,,,, et.,;^ .r:i.amp fuggrwt ,OnS ,01 ,eclucv,0 tr”, poet, !s iv asn.ncon ...eacsauart.,1 Se,,ces 0.,,ROrate ,o• rtn ,o,mal.o,, Oarcio-s a■na ..K...- -71 • : ' t ,1"e•so,
.,44.,,o,....... ,N3 6,402t, piee.wore Reauct,on omen (07CA-0158) v..,n natcr• : : 105C J
Da.., t..on...+1, St..te 1204 stremator ..1 2 110.7 4302 anC !c, 1,4* Ort.c. of
2. REPORT DATE
•
PB92-128271
3. REPORT TYPE ANO OATES COVERED
June 1991
Final Report
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Airships for Marine Mammal Research: Evaluation
and Recommendations
Contract 768108863
6. AUTHOR(S)
James H. W. Hain
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Associated Scientists at Woods Hole, Inc.
P.O. Box 721
Woods Hole, MA 02543
9. SPONSORING. MONITORING AGENCY NAME(5) AND ADDRESS(ES)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
10. SPONSORING / MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Marine Mammal Commission
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The views and opinions expressed in this report may not be shared by
the Marine Mammal Commission, its Committee of Scientific Advisors
on Marine Mammals, or the Commission staff.
12a. DISTRIBUTION; AVAILABIUTY STATEMENT
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Unlimited
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
What we see and learn often depends on our vantage point.
Research platforms influence the data we gather and the conclusions
we draw. This report describes an investigation of how existing and
"next generation" airships might be used in marine mammal research.
Sixteen flights, resulting in 65 hours and 1400 miles of surveys
were made under various weather conditions. A great deal about the
operation and potential of airships for prolonged observations of
marine mammals was learned. The airship combines capabilities for
slow-speed surveys with stability, a roomy cabin, and a demonstrated
ability to accurately fly survey lines. It has the advantage of
being able to stop, make observations, or "pace along" with a
swimming whale, for instance. In the case of marine mammal studies,
the airship, despite the constraints associated with it, provides
a highly desirable research platform for ocean observations.
15 NUMBER OF PAGES
14. SUBJECT TERMS
37
Research methodology, marine mammal research,
research platforms
17
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
—
18.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19.
16. PRICE CODE
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
Unlimited
Staroa'a ;-o-- 298 (Re ,., 2.89,
7540-0 -280-5•500
iii
c. ..N, 1,Z
290,
:.?5•'t
Hain, Airships -
1
Contents
Introduction
1
Definitions
2
A Short History
2
The Airship in Exploration & Research
4
The PACE Study
5
Modern Airships
6
Results
7
The Next Step—A Dedicated Airship
9
The Role of the Airship in Marine Mammal Research ..
9
Recommendations
12
Conclusions
14
Endnotes
15
Acknowledgments
15
References
16
Figures
Introduction
Perspective. What we see and learn often depends on our vantage point. This is true in
many areas, including marine mammal science. Research platforms influence the data we
gather and the conclusions we draw.
These platforms are changing. Boats and ships have been joined by aircraft, and they in
turn, by satellites. Aerial platforms remain important, and have often been the method of
choice in programs to estimate the numbers of cetaceans (for example, CETAP, 1982). These
platforms have also provided insights to behavior (for example, Hain et al., 1982;
Leatherwood, 1975; Nishiwaid, 1962; Watkins and Schevill, 1979).
However, after extensive time in fixed-wing aircraft, curiosity arose about the advantages
of using airships for marine mammal research. This was not a unique idea, since many had
considered it. Nor was it a new idea, since W. A. Schevill and W. A. Watkins of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, had flown aboard Navy airships in the late 1950s. More recently
(June 1987), Stephen Leatherwood, of the San Diego Natural History Museum, and colleagues
used a blimp to conduct surveys of bottlenose dolphins along the southwestern California coast.
Hain, Airships -
2
Despite various expressions of interest, what seemed to be lacking was a sustained effort to
evaluate and develop this platform.
In December 1989, I began an effort to investigate how modern airships might be used in
marine mammal research. One year later, after 16 flights, discussions with colleagues,
meetings with airship builders and operators, and attending professional meetings on both
airborne science and lighter-than-air aeronautics, I have prepared this report assessing the
utility of airships as a platform for marine mammal research.
Definitions
An airship is a lighter-than-air aircraft having propulsion and a steering system. These
in turn are classified as rigid (shape maintained by internal framework), semirigid, and
nonrigid (shape maintained by internal pressure only). Dirigible is generally synonomous
with airship. A zeppelin is a rigid airship, and "blimp" is said to have been coined as a term
for the nonrigid airships by the British—supposedly based on the sound made when one flicked a
finger on the envelope to test the gas pressure inside.
A Short History
Following on Germany's experiments with the military use of zeppelins in World War I,
the United States initiated its own fleet of airships. The Navy was the principal agency, and
Lakehurst, New Jersey, was the center for lighter-than-air (LTA) aeronautics in the United
States. Several nonrigids had been built, but attention seemed to focus on the large, rigid
airships.
Four of the large "rigids" were flown in the period from 1923 to 1935: the 680 ft
Shenandoah, the 650 ft Los Angeles (acquired from Germany), the 785 ft Akron, and 785 ft
Macon. While their exact role was not always clear, these airships were conceived primarily
as scouts for the fleet. After about 1926-27, they were tested as flying aircraft
carriers—carrying planes that served to "sweep" areas to either side of the airship and increase
coverage. Over time, all but the Los Angeles were lost in crashes. The Los Angeles was
decommissioned in 1932.
Hain, Airships -
3
At the same time (1920s and 30s), the development of commercial passenger-carrying
rigid airships was pursued vigorously by Germany. One ship, the 787 ft Graf Zeppelin, had a
remarkable career. During her 1935 season, she crossed the Atlantic every two weeks from
Germany to South America. In the nine years between 1928 and 1937, the ship made 590
flights, covered more than a million miles, visited five continents, and crossed the ocean 144
times.
In 1936, a German zeppelin, the Hindenburg, made 10 successful round trips across the
North Atlantic from Europe to Lakehurst. Based on this success, 18 flights were scheduled for
the 1937 season. On the first, the Hindenburg burned and crashed on its landing approach at
Lakehurst.1 This event, on May 6, 1937, ended the period of rigid airships in the United
States.
As World War II approached, the Navy's mostly dormant airship program was
revived—but this time with nonrigid airships. The primary impetus was the submarine threat,
and the airships were assigned to anti-submarine patrol, convoy escort, mine detection, and
other missions.
By late 1943, the naval airship fleet totalled 132—operating out of air stations in South
Weymouth, Massachusetts, Lakehurst, New Jersey, Weeksville, North Carolina, Glynco,
Georgia, Tillamook, Oregon, Moffett Field, California, Santa Ana, California, and elsewhere.
Patrols ranged from close inshore to a few hundred miles out to sea. Crew size on operational
flights was 9-10, and mission length typically ranged from 8 to 20 hours. The airships were
in the 220-250 ft range, although several larger 290 ft ships came on line toward the end of
the war. In all of World War II, airships made 58,000 flights and totalled 550,000 hours in
the air . These numbers do not include the 280,000 hours of training flights (Althoff, 1990).
By the 1950s, the Navy's anti-submarine warfare (ASW) airships had grown to 340 ft,
with a crew of 24. Endurance had likewise increased, and was demonstrated on several
occasions. In May, 1954, an airship departed Lakehurst, flew northeast to Cape Cod, south past
Bermuda to Puerto Rico, and landed in Key West, Florida. The record was set for 8.3 unrefueled
days in the air. In 1957, another airship completed a transatlantic circuit from South
Weymouth to Europe, Africa, and Key West, extending the record to 11 unrefueled days aloft.
To convincingly demonstrate all-weather, sustained station-keeping, the Navy maintained
an airship on station for 1,277 hours, on a 24-hour basis, for two months in February and
March, 1960. This was described as "an all-out effort" during often severe weather, and
Hain, Airships -
4
involved in-flight refueling (Althoff, 1990). To extend offshore range, carrier landings were
made in the 1940s and 50s, although by about 1956 the airships had gotten too large for safe
handling on deck.
Throughout, the principal role of the Navy airship had been ASW . However, in the
1950s, the Navy used several large airships as radar platforms. The Airborne Early Warning
(AEW) airships were large—the largest was 403 ft in length and contained 1.5 million ft3
(42,500 m3) of helium. These ships were the largest nonrigid airships ever flown. Although
the technological advances and new models continued through the 1950s and into the early 60s,
the role of the naval airship gradually diminished. The last flight of a Navy airship was on
August 31, 1962, from Lakehurst.
This short history illustrates the considerable experience with overwater airship
operations—an experience that, for the most part, ended 30 years ago.
The Airship in Exploration and Research
The first crossing of the Arctic was made by an airship. Norwegian explorer Roald
Amundsen, the first man to reach the South Pole, had failed in an attempt to reach the North Pole
by airplane. In 1926, he prepared for another attempt—in an Italian-built semirigid dirigible.
The 350 ft Norge cast off from King's Bay, Spitsbergen, in May 1926, crossed over the pole,
and landed in northwestern Alaska. The ship made the 3,180-mile crossing in 71 hours at an
average speed of 45 miles an hour. The effort was the first to establish that no land lay between
Spitsbergen and Alaska.
The Arctic was the site of another record airship flight. In what seems to have been
largely a capabilities demonstration, the Office of Naval Research sponsored a flight from South
Weymouth, Massachusetts, in July 1958. The airship departed for Resolute Bay in the high
Arctic, reached an ice station only 400 miles from the Pole, and returned to the airstation. The
ship had covered 6,200 miles, Including two landings and refuelings on Canadian runways
without mooring (Althoff, 1990).
Airships have frequently served as test platforms. Much of this again had Navy origins.
The development of the magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), airborne radar, and "dips' sonar all
involved the use of airships. In the early 1960s, an airship served as a flying wind tunnel. In
a cooperative project with Princeton University, a Lakehurst ship was fitted with a 20 ft
hydraulically operated strut on which test models were mounted. These tests provided unique
Airships -
5
data wholly free of wind-tunnel wall effects.
Closer to oceanographic research, a Goodyear ship was used in the mid-1980s to measure
water vapor in the ocean/atmosphere boundary layer off California (Hagen, 1987, 1988). In
Australia, two demonstration projects took place. In February 1989, an airship was evaluated
for use as a geophysical survey platform (Cull, 1989; Musgrave, 1989). Later that year, in
June, a multi-task experiment took place where five oceanographic stations were sampled at
distances up to 19 miles from shore. The devices included a surface water sampler, plankton
net, submersible data logger, current follower, and expendible bathythemiograph. The ship
worked at altitudes from 250 to 50 feet (Creswell, 1989). Also in 1989, but on the other side
of the globe, a hot-air dirigible was used by French botanists in a study of the tropical rain
forest canopy in French Guiana (Halle', 1990).
A project now in the final planning stages is one by Blanc et al. (1989a, 1989b). Here, a
series of air-sea interaction experiments will be conducted using an instrument package
suspended 60 m beneath a blimp flying at an altitude of 70 m. The instruments will be
positioned 5 to 10 m above the ocean surface and measure surface flux and microwave
backscatter with an accuracy difficult to obtain by other means. Flights are scheduled to begin
in October 1991.
Demonstration of the scientific value of the airship to date has been diverse and generally
positive. However, all scientific experience to date has been aboard opportunistic platforms
(donated flight time), sporadic in nature, and not sustained beyond one or a few initial flights.
The PACE Study
The closest that the United States has come to developing an airship for maritime uses and
ocean research was in 1983. The Patrol Airship Concept Evaluation (PACE) study was a
combined effort of the U. S. Navy and Coast Guard, with the involvement of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Both the Navy and the Coast Guard had been considering lighter-than-air platforms. A
literature study and analysis (Bailey et al., 1980) led to a proof-of-concept flight
demonstration. The program was conducted in 1983 using a modem 164 ft S-500 airship
manufactured by Airship Industries, Ltd., London, England.
Hain, Airships -
6
The objectives of the program were to 1) evaluate the performance characteristics of the
airship, and 2) assess the potential of the modem airship/sensor system for various missions.
The missions had a largely military focus, but did include a portion relating to the Coast Guard's
interest in environmental sampling. The sensors and equipment specific to the Coast Guard tests
included:
0 Marconi thermal imaging system
0 boarding boat system (a modified Avon inflatable)
0 300-lb.-capacity winch
0 surface current probe
0 data-gathering/transmitter marker buoys
0 current drift cards
0 expendible bathythermograph system (XBT)
0 1.7 I sampling bottle
0 portable gas chromatograph with sampler
0 Hasselblad and Pentax cameras
The Coast Guard's operational tests took place on August 22-29, 1983, off Oregon Inlet,
North Carolina. The personnel rescue/winching demonstration and boarding boat
recovery/deployment demonstration took place September 19-21 over the nearby Pasquotank
River. The oceanographic data gathering demonstrations were largely successful. Where not,
the experiments resulted in recommendations. The one area where tests failed was in the
deployment and recovery of the inflatable boat. Because of certification delays, operations with
an unmanned boat were required. This, and problems with aerodynamic instability and
winching rates, led to failure. Since then, however, the French Navy has successfully conducted
tests with a manned craft and a redesigned system.
By and large, the conclusions for these portions of the tests were that the airship provided
an excellent platform for visual searches, and a stable and extremely effective platform for
most other tasks. An overall conclusion was that a serious consideration of the airship in
maritime roles could be technically substantiated (Bailey, 1985).
r-kasrilps -
Modern Airships
Modern airships (Figures 1-4), generally considered to be those built after the late
1970s, are quite different from the WWII Navy blimps or the familiar Goodyear ships.
Computer-aided design produces new structural designs and streamlined shapes.
Multi-layered, high-tech fabrics make the envelope more impervious to helium loss—and
degradation of helium purity through contamination by other gases. The envelope is also
considerably more resistant to sunlight and the associated UV deterioration of the fabric.
Weight savings are realized through construction with keviar, fiberlam, and other new
materials. Lastly, ground handling and maneuverability in the air are considerably improved
by the use of vectored-thrust propulsion. Here, the propellors are housed in ducts that rotate
both above and below the horizontal. Among the advantages is the ability to hover in zero wind,
an ability not possible in conventionally powered ships.
Results
To date, colleagues and I have made 16 flights aboard airships. This has resulted in about
65 hours and 1,400 miles of surveys for marine mammals. We have flown off Santa Maria,
California; Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay; Cape Cod,
Massachusetts; and most recently, the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. We have
experienced conditions that ranged from grey and windy, with sea states of Beaufort 4+, to
sunny and calm with a sea state of 0. We have sighted humpback, fin, minke, and right whales,
dolphins, turtles, sharks, rays, fish schools, birds, shipwrecks, oil slicks, plumes, and oceanic
fronts. We have experimented with airship maneuvers, observer seating, and equipment. We
have learned a great deal about the operation and potential of airships. In addition, we have
talked at length with flight and ground crews, met with airship builders and operators, and
attended a number of professional meetings.
An airship provides a highly desirable research platform for ocean observations. It
combines capabilities for slow-speed surveys (up to about 35 kts cruising speed) with
stability, a roomy cabin, and a demonstrated ability to accurately fly survey lines. At the same
time, it has the advantage of being able to stop, make observations, or "pace along" with a
swimming whale, for instance. In the case of marine mammal studies, it is an ideal platform for
the still and video photography that documents characteristics and behaviors. Our experience is
Hain, Airships -
8
that the platform is stable and nearly vibration-free (Figures 5-7).
With the floor hatch available for downward-looking instrumentation (Figure 8), the ship
provides the ability to collect environmental data. Because lowered samplers have been used in
other studies (described previously) an airship being used for visible or infrared remote
sensing has the ability to collect its own "ground truth" data.
Like any research platform, and specifically any aircraft, the airship has constraints
associated with it. However, the one constraint most often mentioned wind and weather—is not
the constraint it is generally thought to be, at least in marine mammal research. Experience
from various platforms during 10 years indicates that sea states above Beaufort 3, and winds
above 15 knots are mostly unsuitable for marine mammal work. As wind and whitecaps
increase beyond this threshold, sighting cues decrease precipitously. The airship operational
threshold is well above this (28 kts), so in fact the research constraints are more restrictive
than the operational constraints.
The strength of the airship—its slow speed—does introduce a constraint in the way it is
used however. The airship is not a "long-legged" platform. Hundreds of miles of trackline or
large areas are not feasible. The airship is best employed for fine-grain work in smaller areas.
Speed and performance characteristics also mean that the ship is best positioned at an
airfield close to the operations area. For example, an airfield 45 miles from the coast presents
a minor or negligible consideration to a fixed-wing aircraft. However, in an airship, it can be
an hour and a half slog—particularly if head winds are encountered. Compounding the problem,
pushing into a head wind requires increased power settings and results in higher fuel
consumption—decreasing time and range once in the operational area.
Once in the operational area and on survey, head winds and the corresponding power
settings also mean the engines are noisier. In this situation, we observed a higher percentage
(>50% in some cases) of animals of all species that responded to the presence of the ship and
"ducked under as we approached and passed. This was most extreme in cases of higher power
settings and reduced altitudes (<350ft). In these cases, the airship elicits the same kind of
response as I have seen from fixed-wing aircraft.
A final comment on constraints deals with ground handling and ground crew. This remains
a major factor in airship operation and expense. The required ground crew of about 15 (for the
S-600) becomes expensive, moreso in a mobile operation when meals and lodgings are included.
This factor is being addressed by the industry. Trials are now underway to develop the use of
"mules" (Figure 9) that will partially mechanize the operation and reduce costs.
main, Airships -
When planning and logistics take into account the existing constraints, and survey
conditions are good, the airship is a highly successful platform. In light to moderate conditions
and favorable wind directions, the ship is quiet and animal reaction is considerably reduced. On
the best of days, the ship seemed to elicit no reaction from most animals. Indeed, the reaction
sometimes became one of apparent curiosity. I have seen dolphins roll over, and turtles crane
their necks and elevate their heads for a "look."
When used in applications that take advantage of their strengths, airships are unmatched.
In a handful of trials, we have also found them useful in multiplatform applications
(airship/boat, airship/plane). This area of research is continuing.
The Next Step—A Dedicated Airship
In the last 18 months, we have learned about, refined, and evaluated the potential of the
airship for use in marine mammaVocean research. Flight time was made available by
corporations who operate these ships for marketing and advertising purposes. These
contributions have been most valuable indeed.
Building on this experience, it is now appropriate to consider a dedicated airship. Prior to
suggesting that an agency or institution (or consortium thereof) purchase and operate a ship,
the logical next step would seem to be leasing a ship for a period of weeks or months over a
number of years. Discussions are now underway exploring the possible arrangements. As
envisioned, this would be a multi-project, multi-investigator effort with multi-agency
support.
Three options are being examined:
0 The new Westinghouse Airships S-1000 ship. A larger ship (222 ft/10,000 m3),
with extended range and endurance. This ship will have the ability to work, for
example, off Cape Hatteras and out to the Gulf Stream. (Figure 10).
0 The American Blimp Corporation A-60 Lightship. A smaller ship(130 ft/1,700
m3), suited for nearshore work. This ship is being evaluated for use in coastal
waters of the SE U.S.— right whale/manatee/turtle/seabird work. (Figure 11).
0 The US–LTA 138S airship. This mid-size ship (160 ft/4,000 m3) is similarly
being evaluated for coastal research projects (Figure 12).
Hain, Airships -
10
The Role of the Airship in Marine Mammal Research
The airship is best used for fine-scale "follow-on" studies. When data from other sources
have indicated areas of interest—such as feeding or calving grounds, or migration corridors—the
airship can function as the platform most appropriate to elucidating the details. This capability
may have particular value in areas where human impacts may be detrimental to marine
mammals, and mitigating or management procedures are sought. Three examples of research
particularly suited to airships follow.
Abundance estimation. Once an area has been identified as being important to large
numbers of animals, or perhaps to smaller numbers from a small population, obtaining an
accurate estimate of abundance may be important. While aerial survey data are often relied
upon for providing these abundance estimates, there remains great reliance on estimators and
correction factors (Hiby and Hammond, 1989; Scott and Gilbert, 1982). There are also
confounding factors, such as for example, whales alternating at the surface—reported for
several species by Watkins and Moore (1982).
In considering the problems of aerial surveys, Scott and Gilbert (1982) state that one
solution is to lower the ground speed. The airship does this. And, in our work during the past
year, we have often noted our ability to sight and identify submerged animals and those making
fleeting appearances at the surface (Hain, unpublished data). Because the airship provides the
capability for slower survey speeds and longer scan times, the accuracy of the sightings and the
counts increase. As a secondary product, data on sighting distance, sea state, weather, time of
day, species characteristics, and submergence times will be useful to analyzing data from most
aerial platforms.
A second common method of abundance estimation, mark and recapture (photograph and
rephotograph) depends on quality photographs where identifying marks can be seen with clarity
(Figure 13). The open-window, no-glass photography from an airship positioned by a whale
can provide this quality in a greater percentage of instances. There is the added consideration of
a less obtrusive presence than from a circling airplane.
Behavior and habitat studies.
Examples of behavioral studies from aerial platforms have
been previously given. Due to the positioning capability of the airship, these kinds of
observations can be extended, rather than "grabbed" on fly-bys or during circling. Our
Hain, Airships -
11
experience supports our expectations (Figure 14). We have also found the airship to be useful
in recording relationships between sightings of all forms of marine life and ocean "edges,"
fronts, or "weed lines." As with the behavioral observations, the combination of slow speed and
the aerial vantage point contribute greatly to the success of the observations.
Management-directed objectives. Of the various behavior and habitat studies, perhaps the
most important are those where human activities have an impact. In an area where these
impacts may be detrimental, observations from an airship may provide solutions. Detailed
distribution and behavioral data, as well as potential conflict intersections might be used to
identify mitigating and management procedures. Two examples illustrate this point:
The northeastern Florida/Georgia coastal waters have been identified as an
important winter calving ground for right whales (Kraus et al., 1988). At the
same time, right whale mortality due to human activities may be inhibiting the
recovery of the species (Kraus, 1990). The right whale mortalities are
predominantly calves and juveniles. Among the factors identified were ship
strikes from large vessels. This author was present in March of 1991 when a
2-year old female came ashore on Amelia Island, Florida (Figure 15). The cause
of death was a ship strike. The St. Marys ChanneVJacksonville area is an area of
heavy ship traffic. It is also a primary area for right whales.
During the period of peak right whale occurrence, observations from an
airship could describe whale behaviors relative to ship traffic. Do the whale
distribution and traffic lanes conflict? What are the reactions of right whales to
ships? Are whales effective at getting out of the way? What changes in ship
traffic lanes, procedures, or speeds might be appropriate?
Steliwagen bank, off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is an area of high whale
abundance—a feeding grounds. Yet, in recent years, human presence—from
whalewatching boats, recreational boats, airplanes, divers, and others—has
converged on the area. Local naturalists describe summertime weekends in
particular as "a circus," but one with negative implications.
Hain, Airships -
12
This area appears to be an example of an case where marine mammals may
be on a detrimentally intersecting path with humans. In addition to the above
elements, a sewer outfall pipe from Boston is in the final planning stages. With
the threat of clear problems, but designation as a sanctuary imminent,
Steliwagen Bank may be an arena where the data collection and monitoring
capabilities of an airship might be put to good use.
Both of the foregoing examples illustrate the type of research and the sequence of
operations appropriate to the use of an airship. In each case, larger-scale surveys and other
data sources have indicated areas of interest—and possible problems. At this point, the airship
is brought in for follow-on studies on the next plateau. This also illustrates the specialized yet
complementary nature of the airship as a research platform. Subscribing to the "many tools in
the toolbox' concept, the airship is not an initial or stand-alone platform, but is likely best
operated in coordination (simultaneous or sequential) with other "tools"—fixed-wing aircraft,
boats and ships, opportunistic sources, radio tags, and satellites.
Recommendations
Given that today's airships are largely designed and built for commercial advertising, and
given that a mission-specific airship is to be modified or built for science, the following
recommendations are offered—in a more or less prioritized list.
Overwater operations. It has been 30+ years since the United States operated airships
over water. Pilots and technicians are retired. Operations manuals, when available, are
archived at scattered locations. A compilation of knowledge on operations, meteorological
factors, and safety procedures should take place. The ability for routine offshore work needs to
be re-established.
Observer visibility. The forward and downward view is probably the most important for
marine mammal searches. As it is, this view is mostly obstructed by the flight instrument
console (Figure 16).2 The most desirable configuration would be an arrangement similar, for
example, to the nose seats in the modified Beech AT-11, a survey aircraft used in several
offshore marine mammal studies. Here, the observer(s) sit forward and slightly below the
Hain, Airships -
13
flight deck. This provides a 180° lateral view and nearly a 70° (below the horizontal)
downward view. A seat for perhaps a single observer could be achieved by reconfiguring the
forward section of the car. The navy patrol airships of WWII had such a station—the
bombardier's seat. (I am advised, however, that this option would likely involve considerable
re-engineering and expense).
Sparing that option, an observer seated in the co-pilot's seat can improve sighting by
sitting up on a spare camera case or other elevating device. A change to the removable
plexiglass section in the forward flight compartment window would be beneficial. If this section
were enlarged and positioned higher, an observer in the right seat would have a glass-free
forward view—highly desirable (refer again to Figure 16).
A third option would involve the use of a belly mounted pod. Here, a "bubble" would be
attached under the airship belly, with access through a hatch. The visibility forward and
downward would be good, and the engineering and cost less than in reconfiguring the nose of the
airship car.
Little or no changes are required in the side windows. However, in a science airship,
"observer seats" would need to be higher than the present "passenger seats"—again, for best
forward and downward views. Our experience suggests a seat level 6-8 in below the window
ledge is about right.
For prolonged observing, experiments might be conducted to assess the benefits of a small,
perhaps detachable, wind screen on the forward edge of the windows.
Noise abatement. At times, the engines can be noisy.3 Particularly for endangered species
observations and other sensitive situations, noise reduction would be most desireable. There
should be a study of frequency and levels generated, muffler feasibility, and general noise
abatement. Airship operators have expressed concern about the power loss associated with
muffler systems. One solution might be a cut-out or bypass system, where full power is
available when needed, yet engines can be muffled during routine operations.
Glare. At times there is considerable glare on the forward windows (S-600 ship). It may
be from the sea, sky, envelope, curvature of the plexiglass, or a combination. The solution
could be as simple as flat black paint on the envelope directly above and forward of the window,
or a modification in the glass coating.
Hain, Airships -
14
Car configuration. On a science airship, the inside of the car would be fitted with a system
of "hard points" with standard attachment hardware for equipment racks, camera mounts, etc.
(Figure 17). Reliable AC and DC power would be readily available with standard connectors.
Several attachment points would exist on the outside of the car for antennas and the like. In
certain instances a small winch could be fitted. A "science manual" would be prepared giving
specifications on available power supplies, power restrictions, logistical constraints,
procedural information, necessary measurements, and providing, for example, a template
for hatch-mounted equipment.
Conclusions
Aerial surveys have become the method of choice in many programs to estimate numbers of
many cetacean species. Descriptions of characteristics and behaviors have also been valuable.
The airship should now be considered as an important complement to existing platforms and
capabilities.
On survey, the slower speed of the airship increases viewing or scan time. Animals with
minimal sighting cues, fleeting appearances at or near the surface, or submerged are more
likely to be detected.
When animals are sighted, clearer, longer, and less obtrusive periods of uninterrupted
viewing will increase accuracy of numbers, markings, size, behaviors, and descriptions of
individuals within a group or sighting. With window panels removed, the no-glass photographic
ability is a real advance.
In short, the ability to both fly survey lines and to stop and do "station work" is unique.
Various photographic gear and instrumentation is possible.
In summary, the airship can fill a definite need. A number of the priority data
requirements in marine mammal science•—time/space variability, improving abundance
estimates, behavioral studies, anthropogenic effects, and habitat characterization—can perhaps
be addressed best from the airship as a sole or as a complementary research platform.
Airship technology—if used exclusively to carry TV cameras over sporting events—is quite
simply being underutilized. An important and worthwhile use of the airship is in ocean and
environmental research. Marine mammal and protected species work could well be the logical
first step in developing the airship for research. This avenue should continue to be vigorously
pursued.
Hain, Airships -
15
Endnotes
1. The Hindenburg used hydrogen (flammable) as a lifting gas. Even though the ship was designed and
built to use helium (nonflammable), in the climate preceding World War II, the United States prohibited
the export of helium to Germany. All airships now use helium.
2. Engine noise in airships is a variable—depending on the engines, ship, altitude, and conditions. Under
normal conditions, observers on boats with which we were working described the engine noise as less
than fixed-wing aircraft. In recent trials with the American Blimp Corporation's Lightship, observers
described engine noise as barely noticeable. We are presently studying frequencies and levels
generated by airship engines.
3. Forward visibility is likewise a variable—depending on the ship and its configuration. In the WAI
S-600, the cockpit console reduces visibility. In the ABC A-60 Lightship, the console and seat
positioning makes for better visibility. In upcoming trials with the US-LTA 138S ship, we will include a
visibility evaluation.
Acknowledgments
Manuscript review: Carol P. Fairfield, Robert D. Kenney, and John A. Taylor.
Program support: Center for Marine Conservation, Fuji Photo Film USA, International Wildlife
Coalition, Marine Mammal Commission, MetLife, Minerals Management Service, National Science
Foundation, Sea World, and Virgin Lightships.
Hain, Airships -
16
References
Althoff, William F. 1990. Sky ships: A history of the airship in the United States Navy. New
York: Orion Books. 304 pp.
Bailey, David B. and H. R. Rappoport. 1980. Maritime patrol airship study (MPAS). Journal
of Aircraft 18 (9): 775-779.
Bailey, David B. 1985. Patrol airship concept evaluation (PACE)—final report. Report No.
NADC-85019-60, Naval Air Systems Command (AIR-310C). Washington, D. C.:
Department of the Navy. 143 pp.
Blanc, Theodore V., William C. Keller, and William J. Plant 1989. Oceanography from a
blimp. Sea Technology 30(6): 23-28.
Blanc, Theodore V., William J. Plant, and William C. Keller. 1989. The Naval Research
Laboratory's air-sea interaction blimp experiment. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society 70(4): 354-365.
Botting, Douglas (ed.). 1981. The giant airships. Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books.
180 pp.
CETAP (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program). 1982. A characterization of marine
mammals and turtles in the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental
shelf. Final Report to the Bureau of Land Management. U.S. NTIS Publication No.
PB83-243289. 579 pp.
Cresswell, George. 1989. Oceanography from an airship. Unpublished manuscript. Hobart,
Australia: CSIRO Marine Laboratories. 9 pp.
Cull, J. P. 1989. Airborne sirotem. Exploration Geophysics 20: 399-402.
Hagen, Denise E. 1987. Blimp-based radiometric measurements of the water vapor continuum
absorption in the 8-13tun region. Paper presentation for Atmospheric Spectroscopy
Applications Workshop, sponsored by International Ozone and Radiation Commissions,
Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, U.K., September 1987.
Hagen, Denise E. 1988. The profile of upwelling 111.un radiance through atmospheric boundary
layer overlying the ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 93(D5): 5294-5302.
Hain, James H. W., Gary R. Carter, Scott D. Kraus, Charles A. Mayo, and Howard E. Winn 1982.
Feeding behavior of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the western North
Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin 80(2): 259-268.
Halle', Francis. 1990. A raft atop the rain forest. National Geographic 170(4): 128-138.
Hat Airships -
17
Hiby, A.R. and P. S. Hammond. 1989. Survey techniques for estimating abundance of cetaceans.
Reports of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 11): 47-80.
Kraus, Scott D. 1990. Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales
(Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science 6(4): 278-291.
Kraus, Scott D., John D. Prescott, and Amy Knowlton. 1988. Wintering right whales along the
southeastern U.S.: A primary calving ground. Pp. 148-157 in, Proceedings of the Third
Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, August 8-10,1987. Athens,
Georgia: Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Leatherwood, Stephen. 1975. Some observations of feeding behavior of bottle-nosed dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) in the northern Gulf of Mexico and (Tursiops of T. gill) off
southern California, Baja California, and Nayarit, Mexico. Marine Fisheries Review
37(6): 10-16.
Musgrave, R. J. 1989. Assessment of airships as geoscience research/exploration platforms
Report on stage 1: feasibility study. Internal Document. Department of Geology, The
Australian National University: Canberra, Australia. 11 pp.
Nishiwaki, Masaharu. 1962. Aerial photographs show sperm whales' interesting habits.
Norsk Hvalfangst-Tidende 51(10): 395-398.
Scott, Gerald P. and James R. Gilbert. 1982. Problems and progress in the US BLM-sponsored
CETAP surveys. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 32: 587-600.
The Blimp is Backl 1990. NOVA. WGBH–Boston. [Program aired originally in October 1990—A
good overview of airships past and present. Tape is available from WGBH Public Video
Service]
Watkins, William A. and Karen E. Moore. 1983. Three right whales (Eubalaena glacialis)
alternating at the surface. Journal of Mammalogy 64(3): 506-508.
Watkins, William A. and William E. Schevill. 1979. Aerial observation of feeding behavior in
four baleen whales: Eubalaena glacialis, Balaenoptera borealis, Megaptera novaeangliae,
and Balaenoptera physalus. Journal of Mammalogy 60(1): 155-163.
C
(7
a)
(T)
(.7
as
ID
8 as
0)
0 c
6 '2
C
-0
O c
CD cp
C
0 8
E 3
(.0
(J) o
o
a)
17- CO
(1) C
03
uct3
0_
o_
22
aca
JO 0)
••-• C
'5 2
1
2 s._
0
.c
.(a in
r-
C
0
L.;
•
c~v .0 ral
CD
c
:=
a) a. 2-2
2
7 a
C
CD
.0
;
‘
c ..D
O
o
CD -0 C
C a CD
0 (13
2
C) co 0
it E
.
= 00
eNI .D0
O
Ch v-1 6 Cr:
. 3 kr■ •–• r"
■0 =
■0 •
N
2
r.q
cr.
.
(
0
h'
1
4
0 .
c c
o._=
0 0
c >
V
E
Cli
•••-4
.4
cip
t.) .....
1■. 4. . --4
1..
":"
v
C v0>
0
E
R
o
,–..
_.„
Ci
6.
v
>
.... > > C
- 1...
0
.._,
, .....•
.";;
c —
II.) = ---*,
E ni
0
C
=u
I1.1 1-.
...:
W > ti C C
CV
S c; :z, z)
9,
c
es a –
fv, lc ;
Q, u u – – _
c ::: a' ..c a.
j
co - P•c
c' e
0 t0 E t 0 .0 " ' '
1• ,:;"
e ,
•– ._ c) g c 7 .,
c = C•,
:. 1) It
.... ti
-3 =
>" •u 0
.--•
5p
.4
o
Figure 2. The Westinghouse/Airship Industries Skyship 600, giving principal dimensions.
A
A
✓
ci)
c
a
a)
a)
-c
2
2
75
aT,3
C
3 -ID
a) c
co
7:3 co
CD
C
7.5 Q)
=
.
6
6.
rii 2
.00 Co
C
c c
:(5.
N
O o
C
co 76
a
0
a) E
.N
Z
(13 C.
>
0
O .c
E 0
S2 -c
CD
>
CD
-C —6
t6 j3
O C
73
al
.0 CD
-§- g
CD Z
33 MI
frA CD
,_ca
8 -7,..6.5
'8
w
°' _e,
.c
1—
ca 8
75 0
-a
C sa.
o 2
co a
8 -0
8
c., U02
a0
.a >
..2 op
c -,E
0
=
F-- 2:s
0cri Fil
3)co 2
ii a_
•
Ta
O
E
0
O
CT)
CL
to
-EL
CL
0
2
0
T/1
E
.c
as -1:3
m
E .=
c
O o
a ca
r=
1E >
ct)
as
cp
c
1— 0
4 (7)
82
7 13
• C
cri
a) a)
a)
L.
a) -0
2: °
a) 1
2
if)
o
.E
c) •
(I)
-c
c•
cm 5
0.
'c
a)
g
>, o
Cl)
roc
c
a) -0
Q. 'CU
o
§
TO
(ti al
"
To Q.
E
rr
E
(ti 0
G c
CD (1.)
'c o
(Ts -
E
=
o 1,5
cu
>,
a) IQ
• g
u)
3
c
.03
o
CD 'CI
:E
•
•a 9
f.
•
‘,„
c
Tti
CD
o
5.
c o
ti
• >
Jo 2 .c
O 9- c
*-
Lri 10 1:3
a) a)
o
• E
2 .0
Figure 6. An example of a work station set up in the airship car—in this case a navigation/plotting table.
I.
Figure 8. Two views of the floor hatch in the after section of the car.
Dimensions are 20 X 35 inches. The hatch could be used for downwardlooking instrumentation, cameras, or lowered samplers.
11=111.11.1.1..11.1.1.KAr MMIMMIlaarAit
11-91EN■
▪
„
SN) 6' 0:3
6' c‘i
N
75 6 c•i
0
9
U
0
1
i
Ballonet volume
Gross Envelope volume
PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS
0 co g
E 'Cr
E
<
a2
C‘j
C
g
E
• rz.
,
(16 tr•
E
O
cv
cc co
•
0.1
Height (Overall)
C■4
0.1 ce)
ul
Length (Overall)
v.)
tc
▪
a)
ca
cc
2
0
cc
u.
1:3
a)
C
i2
c
C
co
C
a)
0
U,
ca
a.
cr)
z
Z
PORT SIDE ELEVATION
CC
O
HANDLING R
3
HELIUM GAS VALVE
0
0
.17
w.
0
.c
U)
a)
N
_c
CO
co u)
C
< ((6
7)
ch
.0
E
E
:
D
t--
HOSE LINES
LIGHT INSTALL ATION
La
U)
co'cl
z 0
O
Figure 13. Four fin whales northeast of Provincetown, Massachusetts on August 16, 1990.
The marks/scars on the leftmost whale were distinctive—this whale was resighted on
several occasions. (Photographed from the Fuji airship by R. D. Kenney?.
cD 0
c
03
cn (7)
al
CD
a) (,)
-0
cD
c
•
u) c z
•-•
E
``)
"B)
c
ca
'13
.c 0
E Tn" u)
-c
as —
.c a)
a) >'
"6
aS
A 0
c
0
7,1
c
.c
>,
.0
73CD.c•-• 0
cD
>
U)
.-c6 (II.
P
8 0 I.2 _
®=
E' 0
a) :=1
"'
_C
c
al
m'
CD 157 a) -
-6
CD
S 8.2
0 .•-•
- 6,
E Er) In
0
;
4 V) a 2
1-
1‘ ) 6 §
LL
E
2
cl) 0
cn .2
O
2
sp
c
c o
a)
0
a) c
>
to 0
o Lo
•
(1)
-
F
),
co
8 — c/5
.°
2
21.
.C
• co O.
as :a
• N to
co
a
E °
• -0 0
E cf;
(J)
co
CL CD
CD O Cl)
:Z 1:3
o
2
0
4.O Tc
(I)
F
F :2 .c
C) > a_
,ct3
c
C3 to/
ct
UL 73.
;
▪
=
;
a
N
13 '7=
13 c
CD tz clo
0. oj —
2 >,
g •C
•o L iTs
c
o
Q
CD -—
CO °
c
a0)
• ct,
a -6
s<
tri
0
cn •
0:5 13
3 cc
.7
cc E
ii~ Q
16
c c°
a al
3
a)
-c)
c
(i3
CD >,
.E
a) -Q)
(r)
o
C
.2
co zi
-CD
acp >
co
-a
0 X/
I-
E cs) -9_
,„
0 -=a9- -0
a) a 2
5
111
ac o'
U
-6
C
) al
a) > o
s(,) _c
cc
o o_
o
> CD
'CTS (1)
a)
cu
c
a.)
3 3
(1)
0
-5
co o
CD C
.0 al .—
C1
0 CD CD
a
-c) - a)
cri cr)
> .o
O 0
o
E c
ca 2 co
-0 CD
0C>
U- ca 'cr)
cc; cp 1:3
=
c
:E s
.(f)
a) _c
Figure 17. An example of an instrument rack mounted in the airship car.
(This one belonged to aerial videographers of Winged Vision, Inc.)
APPENDIX XIII
UNOLS COUNCIL NOMINATIONS 1998
Nominating Committee
Dennis Hansell (Chair), Clare Reimers, Peter Lonsdale
Time Frame
1) February/March 1998 - Nomination Committee formed
2) April/May 1998 - Announcements published
3) July 1998 - Draft Election Slate presented to Council
4) July/August 1998 - Election Slate finalized
5) September 1998 - Council Elections
Announcements Requesting Nominations
1) UNOLS Newsletter
2) Advertisement in EOS
3) Letters to the Institutional Representatives to UNOLS
4) Letters to Dean/Directors of UNOLS institutes.
6/30/98
UNOLS COUNCIL NOMINEES 1998
Name
Discipline
Institute
Austin, James
Geophysics
UT Austin
Bauer, Jim
Biogeochemist
VIMS
Bryant, Bill
Geology
TAMU
Cowles, Tim
Biologist
OSU
Cutter, Greg
Chemist
ODU
Firing, Eric
Physics
UH
Fornari, Dan
MG&G/DeepSubmerg. WHOI
Goss, John
Geophysics
UT Austin
Lee, Tom
Physics
RSMAS
Moran, Brad
Chemist
URI
Royer, Tom
Physics
ODU
Youngblouth, Marsh
Biologist
HBOI
*Strikeout indicates nominations not forwarded to the final election slate.
6/30/98
DRAFT NOMINATION SLATE
(July 1, 1998)
CHAIR
VICE CHAIR
Physics
Royer, Tom
ODU
COUNCIL
OPERATOR
Bryant, Bill
Firing, Eric
Youngblouth, Marsh
Geology
Physics
Biology
TAMU
UH
HBOI
NON-OPERATOR
Bauer, Jim
Chemistry
VIMS
AT-LARGE
Cowles, Tim
Fornari, Dan
Lee, Tom
OSU
Biology
MG&G/DeepSubmerg. WHOI
RSMAS
Physics
6/30/98
Candidate Profiles
Tom Royer, Physics, ODU, current Vice Chair, eligible for one more term.
Bill Bryant, Geology, TAMU Oceanography Department Head
Eric Firing, Physics, UH, Previously a member of FIC, currently on SWATH
Design Committee at UH
Marsh Youngbluth, Biology/Submersibles, HBOI, Agency experience with
NSF/NOAA
Jim Bauer, Chemistry, VIMS, nominated by Dean Don Wright
Tim Cowles, Biology, OSU, currently Assoc. Dean, nominated by Dean Brent
Dalrymple
Dan Fornari, MG&G/DeepSubmerg, WHOI, Chief Scientist for Deep
Submergence at WHOI
Tom Lee, Physics, RSMAS, active in RSMAS Ship Ops and joint RSMAS/HBOI
committees; nominated by Dean Otis Brown
6/30/98
APPENDIX XIV
Z Drives
Glosten Report Recommendations, 1998, and Current
Status
I. The original R/V Knorr lower starboard gear was replaced at the May 1998
drydocking. This was important to do because the original gear was a high risk
gear. WHOI had purchased two new lower gear sets for Knorr in advance of this
drydocking, and checked the contact area of the installed port side 1997
replacement lower gear. At this time it was determined that in accordance with
the "moderate risk" definition, the cost/risk assessment determined that the 1997
replacement gear (port side) should not be replaced. Both units had bearing/seal
replacements.
Status:
• Two gears purchased.
Starboard gear replaced, but not port gear, by ONR direction.
• Bearings and seals replaced on both sides.
Remaining new gear held as spare.
New gears are of Klingelnberg manufacture (firm with best tooth
contact/hardening performance to date on earlier gears), but were on
hand/rapidly available, thus meet 0.094 in. case depth, not the more stringent
0.104 in. specification.
• Knorr continues to operate de-rated due to the unreplaced gear.
• The new gear bought but not installed should serve as a competent, if not
optimal, fleet spare provided good tooth contact is maintained.
2. Replace the original R/V Melville lower port gear at the next drydocking.
The contact area of the 1993 replacement gear should be checked at this time,
and a cost/risk assessment made as to replacement of this starboard gear.
Status:
• ONR funded purchase of two new gears; both to be replaced at next
drydocking.
• ABS is reviewing gear specs./certification process via a Corrective Action
Team (CAT), which may lead to changes.
• Purchase of gears being held until CAT is settled, due August 15, 1998.
• ONR has asked Lips to meet/discuss the issue after CAT analysis is received.
3. Obtain one spare lower gear set for Melville/Knorr class, held in reserve in
case of a failure. This gear will serve as a spare for all 4 thrusters.
Status:
• WHOI gear purchased but not installed should serve for now
• But see discussion in #1 above; there may be cause for additional changes in
Knorr after CAT results, ONR/Lips meeting, etc.
4. Obtain one spare port upper gear and one spare starboard upper gear for
AGOR 23-5.
Status:
• Funded by ONR.
• Complete lower unit spares exist, so spares complement will cover all 4
possibilities (port upper, port lower, starboard upper, starboard lower) when
these are purchased/on hand.
• This purchase also on hold pending CAT results.
APPENDIX XV
w
c„,
0.
<
CD
GUARANTY PERIOD
>
z
O
z
* 1‘
TRIALS
SCN LIMIT
06 lin - On Mar 92
AVAILABILITY
31
May
98
2
2- 5 Jan 92
00
a,
CO
POST SHAKEDOWN
00
a,
17.20 Oct 97
FINAL
%
II
—
§
MAY98
cil 7
CONTRACT
_
APR98
JU N97
&
TRIALS
WARRANT Y
CREW FAM.
03 - 22 Feb
MAY97
ill
%
'
DEC97
IALVINCONVERSIONPERIOD
03Mar 97
N
crs
tzt
±
12Nov 96
c4
main
FUA
PDAM Demo
12 Apr DELIVERY03 - 25Mar 25Mar 13 May 97
11 Apr Sr
MAR97
_.
TRIALS
JAN97
i
Fi
SEP97
8
.._ce
0
AGOR25 R/V ATLANTIS
cn
J U L97
E--,
(Yea r4)
r-
ACCEPTANCE
DEC96
AGOR 25 TEST & TRIALSSCHEDULE
>
o
z
\
I
h...
•-, L,
A
s
a,
h
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement