AUTOMATION *OF* SHIPS -- not "ON" ships!
Prateek Rishi
I am an ex-Master Mariner and wonder why can we not build FULLY AUTOMATED
ships carrying large parcels of cargo from one corner of the world to
another.
There already exists technology to communicate Command and Control Messaging
to the ship's Main-Engines and other Auxiliary Equipment. Only a little bit
of work is needed to come up with a FULLY AUTOMATED VESSEL. What is the
effort being put in into this direction?
Let's not worry about the near-shore navigation. I can always send a fleet
of Tug Boats - Three, Four, Five or Six, I can dispatch a complete fleet of
Tug boats to meet my FULLY AUTOMATED SHIP at, say, the Bahamas, to Meet and
Assist the ship, maybe send the skeleton crew up by a chopper, and then
over-ride the ship's automation and bring the ship into harbour. Where do
you see a problem with that!? Send the Master with a key to the Bridge and
the E/R!! :-)
The Master and his Crew, take control of the ship, start whatever Aux.
plants that need to be started, with the C/E's directions, and bring the
ship in. Once the load/discharge ops. are completed, the Vessel is sailed
up till the Bahamas and then set course, and left to be greeted at the
entrance of the Persian Gulf.
This was just to give an example. A lot of modification on the Ship needs
be done and I feel I have the technology. I wish to communicate with folks
who can relate to this and contribute with their concerns/suggestions.
It is already year 2000 and we still are manning the ships like we used to,
under the watchful guidance and monitoring of SOLAS and the USCG and other
Local Authorities. This may continue, but with automation, SOLAS, IMO and
the USCG may have a little lesser life at sea to worry about!
Believe me, this is possible.
Just about EVERYTHING can be monitored and controlled sitting in my Control
Center ashore. Why are we not doing this till yet? Is there any effort in
this direction.
Let's first learn to crawl, then take the baby-steps and then walk. All this
can be done in stages.
On the one hand we have people wondering if Cellular Phones can be used on
Ships versus their ban from usage during air-plane landing and take-offs
(cellphones 'work' even at 5000 feet, in the air, only, by then the
seat-belt signes are already on!) and on the other hand we have the Marine
Notices publishing reports of Automatic Pilot failures due to the use of
Cell-phones! Masters, Mates and C/Es using the Marine Notices, please note,
these Marine Notices are only advice, and sometimes not even that, they
solved the purpose of a Bulletin Board for those at Sea, and today there are
*many* Companies and their Safety Departments and their Superintendents and
the Ship-borne crew themselves who will actually follow each word of the
MS-Notice and will carve out their Operations Plans and Safe Practices from
them. I think that is giving too much importance to MS Notices. While some
of them are *very* informative and contain extracts from important
regulations, I do not subscribe to the notion that everything in all
MS-Notices should be used as a directive or instruction. Therefore, while I
appreciate the fact that the use of a particular frequency (((cell-phone,
walkie-talkies, etc. --------- on one of my Tanker ships, my Walkie-Talkie
Radio's Transmit button could actually trip my Cargo Oil Discharge Pumps :-
pointing the Antenna to the COP r.p.m. indicator on the CCR control panel
caused the indicator needle to move past the High-Speed trip set-point and
thus trip the C.O.P.!!))) can be severely disruptive to Bridge Automation
Procedures, I discount the notion that "cell-phones and further automation
should not be used on ships!! There are design improvements that can be
implemented and automation can only be improved, thus REDUCING the burden on
the Ship's Crew, reducing the manning on the Ships and making Life at Sea
more worthwhile, rather than by simply installing Hydraulic Arms and
reducing the no. of Able Bodied Seamen on the ships!! Quality of the Crew
can be improved, automation on the ships can be improved and the status of
the Sea-farer can be brought back.
Please post your comments to this mailing list.
I am also available for setting up chat sessions etc.
Prateek Rishi
Network Systems Engg.
AT&T
New Jersey, USA
Tel:- 973-644-6541
e-mail:- pratee...@att.com
mustaffa
Presently we are already having tremendous problems with oil pollution even
with the full crew onboard. Without any crew, I don't believe it is
possible. I think it is easier said that done.
It's not safe due to the following reasons:
- Previously some shipping companies had tried reducing night watch to one
lone officer and a "deadman's alarm"... later circulars from IMO came around
to inform all involved to stop the experiment.
- You said you have the technology... do you mean you have the technology to
control the satellites?. The American militaries can switch on/off the
satellites as and when they like... can you control them?
Otherwise you may lose a ship with all the bunkers, god knows whatever
cargoes you are carrying and the risk of another marine disaster if the lost
ship came into contact with another vessel.
- Hacking and computer viruses is still at its infant... this may disrupt
your computer tables.
- Piracy at high seas nowadays is an old tradition with modern technology.
Presently there are many ships experiencing piracy attack even with extra
lookouts.
- There is possibilities of radar receiving false echoes which may confuse
the datas received.
Lastly, common problems of maintainence and faulty equipments, which may
result in the vessel being dangerously not under command.
Please consider carefully before you take your baby steps.
Cncerned Mariner.
Mustaffa.
"Prateek Rishi" <pri...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IbrQ4.29171$g4.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Kristian
Being a mariner, this is of course biased:
Technologically, it is possible to let ships cross oceans and even enter
harbours without manning. Experiments have been carried out by Japanese
interests, which I do not exactly know. Many of the problems we can think of are
easily solved: Radar is backed up by cameras and microphone, maintenance robots
( like the ones building cars ) man the engine - a whole fleet being controlled
by a small staff in a shoreside control room.
But I have a hard time imagining that we will have machines make decisions for
us. The largest part of economic interests in this world are the goods we
transport -and a vast part of that at sea. It is of vital importance, I think,
that every ship has a master, constantly aware of the ship and its surroundings
and constantly assessing its situation - both economically and with regards to
safety and the environment.
This is very clearly ( to me anyway ) done best ON the ship, as close to the
situation as possible, so that no computer may distort, filter or jeopardize
the flow of information needed by the master to take his decisions.
Kristian, a very sceptical mariner.
binnacle
Prateek Rishi < wrote in message
> Folks
>
> I am an ex-Master Mariner and wonder why can we not build FULLY AUTOMATED
> ships carrying large parcels of cargo from one corner of the world to
> another.
> Just about EVERYTHING can be monitored and controlled sitting in my
Control
> Center ashore. Why are we not doing this till yet? Is there any effort
in
> this direction.
"Just about" EVERYTHING indicates the technology is not yet available.
Regards,
Bill
Prateek Rishi
Thank you for spending time to read up my idea and responding to my
posting!
I fully appreciate your concerns and I do believe every word of caution
you bring about is a real concern to all of us.
I also agree with the viewpoint that it is the Master who is "The Man
on the spot and at that Time" and his decision is based on his years of
Experience and knowledge that he has gained (don't forget that there
are curriculums where one can become a Master at an age of under 35 or
40 !!! and the "Old Man" is really a very young and dashing handsome
man today, very shy of any grey hair that he might have got -- from the
hydrocarbon vapors!). To make a point out of it, there are ships that
navigate right into storms, with all the weather data that "the
Charterers had but our weather/facsimile station did not relay it" or
where ships hit buoys or fishing boats and hope not to get caught, or
where the root of an accident is again "human error". We all know that
it is ultimately human error that is responsible for 95 per cent of the
accidents. Even for the big ones. And then again, in many industries
they have removed that very element from all systems. There are also
the Underwriters and the Insurance companies, how much do you really
recover from "human error"!!
I have a lot to say to the whole issue. Could compare air-travel and
air shipment of cargo and space travel. Air "voyages" last barely 8
hours and "the systems" are set so that we do not need 35 people on the
airplane for maintenance. And we still do not have remote control of
cargo/passenger air planes. However, we know the fly-by-wire
technology of the "Airbus" aircraft.
By the baby steps what I want to do is to take over all control of the
ship by ground based station "while leaving adequate, intelligent human
life on board" to "monitor the systems" only, and not to get involved
with "other issues". If you are both Master Mariners, then you know
how much of Monitoring is a Master able to do along with his
involvement with other issue that need your attention!! And add to
that a junior Mate or an Engineer who needs some hand-holding and you
start hoping for a relief soon. Is this not true? While addressing
this issue, let me say that a Master is really as good as the inputs he
gets. Whether they are from his night-watch or from his Radar or his
Gyro or the Position Indicating device or the roll and pitch of the
vessel in the seaway or the vibrations of the M/Engine, the MASTER'S
PERFORMANCE CAN ONLY BE BASED ON THE INFORMATION INPUTS HE RECEIVES. I
would like to know, how can the Master operate when he has to worry
about the (inputs from) Pilot, the Mate, the C/Engg. when they keep
referring back to the Master?!! Wouldn't you wish to keep the Master
in an Office with multiple screens from where he can get "un-distorted"
inputs and then give one Command to correct the situation? My futurist
Master would be residing in a very comfortable Office, doing a 8-12
hour shift, with another, and will be watched by another, so that
neither makes drastic and irrational decisions, jeopardizing the
handful of lives on board. (In a few years, I foresee taking those
handful of lives off too!). I just can not replicate the roll and
pitch of the ship and the sound of the wind between the masts and round
the bend of the accommodation, today, without an increased funding for
simulation of the same, but the rest is easily available. There are
other technologies that will suffice in controlling the ships. Don't
we see, it is only shipping where each ship is based on a new design
and a new modification! Why are airplanes not like that, just imagine,
what would have happened if before every flight, the Pilot did a 2 hour
(hoping that would be enough for him) KYS (Know Your Ship) round
because the industry could not control the "modifications and
enhancements" to every new 747 or a DC-10 that rolled out!! That would
have been fun for all of us!!
Employment Issues:-
I am sensitive towards the employment issues of the Sea community.
Having been through the terrible mid-eighties myself, I know that
ultimately there is a whole lot of people who not only assist in the
Charterers' and ShipOwners' interests, they also have to put the bread
on the table back home. I am not trying to "cut hands off the ship", I
am showing them a new avenue where they can go into.
Bridge Control and Anti-Collision Mechanisms:-
As for the issues of false-echoes on the Radar or the Main/Engine
maintenance, there are "mere technical" issues and can be sorted out.
Piracy issues: Issues with Piracy and taking over control by negative
interest groups is what is a bigger issue. Piracy - interesting, if I
do not have the crew on board, what Piracy are you talking of? Most
Pirates have been coming to rob the Captain's Rolex and the Crew's Boom-
Box rather than opening containers. Ofcourse, there are often pirates
that make up organized gangs and know which container to break and then
what to take out, but that is Organized Crime and there are ways to
correct that. And, please, NO, I am not imagining running my novel
container ships through the Singapore Straits or the English Channel.
I am talking of the deep Ocean Navigation, as mentioned in my first
posting itself! All I have to worry about is the Adventurous Sailor
who is trying to reach the Rock of Gibraltar from the Caribbean or who
is trying to reach Okinawa from the Barrier Reef! And the ones who
catch my Tuna and Salmon!! Those are the folks I have to worry, not the
Pirates, who are usually Coastal.
Satellite Control technology:- YES. While Satellite technology is
easily available, let us not get ourselves confounded by technology!
Satellites need not be controlled! They are simply reflectors! And the
GPS Satellites will not be "switched off". The Y2K fear is also over
and I now firmly believe that Doomsday is not going to happen before my
ticker stops ticking within my chest!! Satellites are needed only to
give us the required Control bandwidth. The Control can be done by the
Master sitting in the Simulator like Control Center.
Control and Command using Machines:-
I too am skeptical about relegating the Command to Machines and prefer
to take over Control for now and keep the Command in my hands ashore.
We already have Conferences where Top design-engineers are wondering
how confounding it would be if we were to allow our Refridgerators and
our Coffee Makers and Alarm Clocks to make desisions for us! We do not
want to take over COMMAND, we wish to take over CONTROL and leave the
Monitoring. However, I do not want to start up a debate on this right
now. The length of this article would be extreme for the BBS to
handle. I only want to take over Control to the extent that in the
Deep Seas, the Master and his boys are relieved of mundane tasks as
pilotage. If tomorrow we do not need them, we will do away with them
completely. Not today.
DeadMan's Alarm:- There exists a deadman's alarm for the Pumproom and
for the E/R. Not for the Bridge. The reason was not so much the
safety of the Ship that has installed this but for reasons of COMPLYING
WITH SOLAS REQUIREMENTS of keeping a safe lookout. Obviously, if I am
running a darkened ship, Solas/IMO/USCG/whoever needs to know and I
cannot be expected to keep a VISUAL LOOKOUT. Ofcourse, I can look all
around the horizon and see various depths of it, and hey, I can even
have a better than "visual" lookout at night and at twilight and in sun-
glare and etc. etc. thanks to Technology. With respect to all my
mentors in these esteemed organizations, I must say that there exists
technology today that was not available to these pioneers of SOLAS or
IMO or the USCG!! Using the deadman's alarm was one step towards
technology, putting a re-settable timer and push-button, joined by some
electrical wires, and taking off the watchman! Reminds me of Jurassic
Park!! If we were then wishing to use technology, we have the
technology today!
I have the technology today and I wish to realize my dream, and prove
to the Economic Interests that it is not a nightmare!
Hacking and Computer Viruses:-
Hacking is not unavoidable. But that would be only if someone took
control of the System Satellites or the System Control. Please, we are
not imagining doing this over the Internet that we know of today and
not over IP (Internet Protocol) as we know of today!! Viruses are only
there because are computer system hardware and software are all so
similar. Did you hear of viruses in Mainframe Computers coming and
trashing the world's computers!! Viruses will exist if we are using
computer systems that belong to the family. The odd ones will not get
the viruses. Try the I love you virus on a Linux machine!! If
Microsoft were to be broken up -- or let me not get into that, as I am
not going to disclose which side I lean towards on this BBS, but if MS
Office were to be given a competition from say Sun's StarOffice (did
you ever hear of it? It could be here given the right markets), where
would the Virus worries go? Out of the window!!
Maintenance of the ship:-
There are Companies that will draw diagrams of the ship and allocate
monthly-painting schedules for the ship and try to maintain the
schedule. Then there are companies that will invest in top of the line
paint and warn the Ship's Mate not to unnecessarily descale the plates
and paint. After all, theirs is a superior paint and you do not need
to paint a plate if it is not needed! Are there still days when we
will put the Bosun and his men on a de-scaling routine just because we
need to keep him busy! I'd prefer the crew polishing the main stair-
case brass-work rather than descaling if descaling were not required.
Ofcourse, how much brass-work is left, and then can I ask all my
ABs/OSs to work in the E/R or PumpRoom? Do we have adequate aptitude
there? And if I have machines that do not need any attended preventive
maintenance, do I need to keep 6 ABs on the ship? Or, should I leave
the 6 ABs on the ship and take off the majority of the Engineers/Deck
Officers and give them more intelligent jobs to do? Painting on deck:
again, the most painted surface due to the maximum traffic on any kind
of ships, is usually due to a huge scratch caused by a container-corner
that skidded on the deck, or a block or a wire-thimble that when flying
due to some activity to support the crew. No crew, no nasty scratches
on the deck. Every year I would have my company's crew man each ship
for a short time and paint over the ship -- no excuses of the painting
machine getting stuck or the thinner draining out or the air-hose
coupling that was received at the last port, not fitting!! What I am
calling for is to send professionals to each ship and not try to send a
bunch of monkeys who will promise to do just about everything and then
fail to deliver to complete satisfaction.
I do hope I have settled the concerns of my Audience and again Thank
you for contributing to this reading.
Please feel free to call me.
In article <IbrQ4.29171$g4.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Prateek Rishi" <pri...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Folks
>
> I am an ex-Master Mariner and wonder why can we not build FULLY
AUTOMATED
> ships carrying large parcels of cargo from one corner of the world to
> another.
>
> Believe me, this is possible.
>
> Just about EVERYTHING can be monitored and controlled sitting in my
Control
> Center ashore. Why are we not doing this till yet? Is there any
effort in
> this direction.
>
> Prateek Rishi
> Network Systems Engg.
> AT&T
> New Jersey, USA
> Tel:- 973-644-6541
> e-mail:- pratee...@att.com
>
>
--
"Great Technology Never Dies ...... It only gets cheaper!!""
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Prateek Rishi
Regards
/PR
In article <8f3evs$hv3$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>,
"binnacle" <w....@btinternet.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>
> Prateek Rishi < wrote in message
> > Folks
> >
> > I am an ex-Master Mariner and wonder why can we not build FULLY
AUTOMATED
> > ships carrying large parcels of cargo from one corner of the world
to
> > another.
> > Believe me, this is possible.
> snip
> > Just about EVERYTHING can be monitored and controlled sitting in my
> Control
> > Center ashore. Why are we not doing this till yet? Is there any
effort
> in
> > this direction.
>
> "Just about" EVERYTHING indicates the technology is not yet available.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
>
> Prateek Rishi
> > Network Systems Engg.
>
>
--
Prateek Rishi
Since you say that tech. for what I am saying does not exist, maybe I
should add that
"Technology to stay afloat on the water too is not existing! ;-) It's
there, and people just about manage to transport huge parcels of goods
from one corner of the world to another, and a bunch of people just
about manage to spend about half their lives on these ships, but, as
you are saying, technology does not exist for man to float on water!
It is a very challenging world out there, Bill! Watch it!!
Well, Bill, I couldn't resist writing the above in lighter vein.
However, each to his own!
mustaffa
MAYBE TOWARDS REDISCOVERY OF ARCHIMEDES PRINCIPLE.
"Prateek Rishi" <pri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f6oft$dul$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Dear Mustaffa (Concerned) and Kristian (Skeptical)!!
>
> Thank you for spending time to read up my idea and responding to my
> posting!
>
> I fully appreciate your concerns and I do believe every word of caution
> you bring about is a real concern to all of us.
> I also agree with the viewpoint that it is the Master who is "The Man
> on the spot and at that Time" and his decision is based on his years of
> Experience and knowledge that he has gained (don't forget that there
> are curriculums where one can become a Master at an age of under 35 or
> 40 !!! and the "Old Man" is really a very young and dashing handsome
THANK YOU, I WOULD TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT.
> man today, very shy of any grey hair that he might have got -- from the
> hydrocarbon vapors!). To make a point out of it, there are ships that
> navigate right into storms, with all the weather data that "the
> Charterers had but our weather/facsimile station did not relay it" or
> where ships hit buoys or fishing boats and hope not to get caught, or
> where the root of an accident is again "human error". We all know that
> it is ultimately human error that is responsible for 95 per cent of the
> accidents. Even for the big ones. And then again, in many industries
> they have removed that very element from all systems. There are also
> the Underwriters and the Insurance companies, how much do you really
> recover from "human error"!!
> I have a lot to say to the whole issue. Could compare air-travel and
> air shipment of cargo and space travel. Air "voyages" last barely 8
> hours and "the systems" are set so that we do not need 35 people on the
> airplane for maintenance. And we still do not have remote control of
> cargo/passenger air planes. However, we know the fly-by-wire
> technology of the "Airbus" aircraft.
VERY INTERESTING THEORY... A SHIP THAT CAN FLY... PERHAPS AN AIRSHIP.
> By the baby steps what I want to do is to take over all control of the
> ship by ground based station "while leaving adequate, intelligent human
> life on board" to "monitor the systems" only, and not to get involved
> with "other issues". If you are both Master Mariners, then you know
> how much of Monitoring is a Master able to do along with his
> involvement with other issue that need your attention!! And add to
> that a junior Mate or an Engineer who needs some hand-holding and you
> start hoping for a relief soon. Is this not true? While addressing
> this issue, let me say that a Master is really as good as the inputs he
> gets. Whether they are from his night-watch or from his Radar or his
> Gyro or the Position Indicating device or the roll and pitch of the
> vessel in the seaway or the vibrations of the M/Engine, the MASTER'S
> PERFORMANCE CAN ONLY BE BASED ON THE INFORMATION INPUTS HE RECEIVES. I
> would like to know, how can the Master operate when he has to worry
> about the (inputs from) Pilot, the Mate, the C/Engg. when they keep
> referring back to the Master?!! Wouldn't you wish to keep the Master
> in an Office with multiple screens from where he can get "un-distorted"
> inputs and then give one Command to correct the situation? My futurist
> Master would be residing in a very comfortable Office, doing a 8-12
> hour shift, with another, and will be watched by another, so that
> neither makes drastic and irrational decisions, jeopardizing the
> handful of lives on board. (In a few years, I foresee taking those
YOU START FROM 0 PERSON ONBOARD, NOW TO 2 PERSONS, DON'T FORGET , THE MARINE
ENGINEER, ELECTRONIC ENGINEER, CHIEF COOK, ETC.
> handful of lives off too!). I just can not replicate the roll and
> pitch of the ship and the sound of the wind between the masts and round
> the bend of the accommodation, today, without an increased funding for
> simulation of the same, but the rest is easily available. There are
> other technologies that will suffice in controlling the ships. Don't
> we see, it is only shipping where each ship is based on a new design
> and a new modification! Why are airplanes not like that, just imagine,
> what would have happened if before every flight, the Pilot did a 2 hour
> (hoping that would be enough for him) KYS (Know Your Ship) round
> because the industry could not control the "modifications and
> enhancements" to every new 747 or a DC-10 that rolled out!! That would
> have been fun for all of us!!
>
> Employment Issues:-
> I am sensitive towards the employment issues of the Sea community.
> Having been through the terrible mid-eighties myself, I know that
> ultimately there is a whole lot of people who not only assist in the
> Charterers' and ShipOwners' interests, they also have to put the bread
> on the table back home. I am not trying to "cut hands off the ship", I
> am showing them a new avenue where they can go into.
>
> Bridge Control and Anti-Collision Mechanisms:-
> As for the issues of false-echoes on the Radar or the Main/Engine
> maintenance, there are "mere technical" issues and can be sorted out.
>
THESE "MERE TECHNICAL ISSUES" HAD BEEN THE CAUSED OF MANY MAJOR ACCIDENTS
AND OIL POLLUTIONS SUCH AS THE "AMOCO CADIZ".
> Piracy issues: Issues with Piracy and taking over control by negative
> interest groups is what is a bigger issue. Piracy - interesting, if I
> do not have the crew on board, what Piracy are you talking of? Most
> Pirates have been coming to rob the Captain's Rolex and the Crew's Boom-
> Box rather than opening containers. Ofcourse, there are often pirates
> that make up organized gangs and know which container to break and then
> what to take out, but that is Organized Crime and there are ways to
> correct that. And, please, NO, I am not imagining running my novel
PRESENT DAY PIRATES GO FOR THE WHOLE SHIP. PIRACY HAD BEEN THE CAUSED OF
SOME COLLISSIONS. ALL THE GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD HAD BEEN TRYING TO
ELIMINATE THE ACTIVITIES FOR MANY CENTURIES... AT THE RATE ITS GOING PERHAPS
THEY WILL SUCCEED IN THE NEXT CENTURY.
> container ships through the Singapore Straits or the English Channel.
> I am talking of the deep Ocean Navigation, as mentioned in my first
> posting itself! All I have to worry about is the Adventurous Sailor
> who is trying to reach the Rock of Gibraltar from the Caribbean or who
> is trying to reach Okinawa from the Barrier Reef! And the ones who
> catch my Tuna and Salmon!! Those are the folks I have to worry, not the
> Pirates, who are usually Coastal.
>
> Satellite Control technology:- YES. While Satellite technology is
> easily available, let us not get ourselves confounded by technology!
> Satellites need not be controlled! They are simply reflectors! And the
> GPS Satellites will not be "switched off". The Y2K fear is also over
THAT IS A COMFORTING NEWS... I ALSO HAD EVER CAME ACROSS AN ARTICLE THAT
SAYS "PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON HAD GIVEN HIS WORD THAT HE WOULD NOT SUPPRESSED
THE SATELLITE SIGNALS USED FOR COMMERCIAL GPS, IN THE YEAR 2000"... COULD
YOU TAKE HIS WORD?
> and I now firmly believe that Doomsday is not going to happen before my
> ticker stops ticking within my chest!! Satellites are needed only to
> give us the required Control bandwidth. The Control can be done by the
> Master sitting in the Simulator like Control Center.
>
> Control and Command using Machines:-
> I too am skeptical about relegating the Command to Machines and prefer
> to take over Control for now and keep the Command in my hands ashore.
> We already have Conferences where Top design-engineers are wondering
> how confounding it would be if we were to allow our Refridgerators and
> our Coffee Makers and Alarm Clocks to make desisions for us! We do not
> want to take over COMMAND, we wish to take over CONTROL and leave the
> Monitoring. However, I do not want to start up a debate on this right
"TO KEEP THE COMMAND OR DO NOT WANT TO TAKE OVER COMMAND" ???
WHICH IS WHICH?
> now. The length of this article would be extreme for the BBS to
> handle. I only want to take over Control to the extent that in the
> Deep Seas, the Master and his boys are relieved of mundane tasks as
> pilotage. If tomorrow we do not need them, we will do away with them
> completely. Not today.
>
> DeadMan's Alarm:- There exists a deadman's alarm for the Pumproom and
> for the E/R. Not for the Bridge. The reason was not so much the
> safety of the Ship that has installed this but for reasons of COMPLYING
> WITH SOLAS REQUIREMENTS of keeping a safe lookout. Obviously, if I am
> running a darkened ship, Solas/IMO/USCG/whoever needs to know and I
> cannot be expected to keep a VISUAL LOOKOUT. Ofcourse, I can look all
> around the horizon and see various depths of it, and hey, I can even
> have a better than "visual" lookout at night and at twilight and in sun-
> glare and etc. etc. thanks to Technology. With respect to all my
> mentors in these esteemed organizations, I must say that there exists
> technology today that was not available to these pioneers of SOLAS or
> IMO or the USCG!! Using the deadman's alarm was one step towards
> technology, putting a re-settable timer and push-button, joined by some
> electrical wires, and taking off the watchman! Reminds me of Jurassic
> Park!! If we were then wishing to use technology, we have the
> technology today!
"JURASSIC PARK"... NICE MOVIE BUT I PREFER "TITANIC".
>
> I have the technology today and I wish to realize my dream, and prove
> to the Economic Interests that it is not a nightmare!
>
> Hacking and Computer Viruses:-
> Hacking is not unavoidable. But that would be only if someone took
> control of the System Satellites or the System Control. Please, we are
> not imagining doing this over the Internet that we know of today and
> not over IP (Internet Protocol) as we know of today!! Viruses are only
> there because are computer system hardware and software are all so
> similar. Did you hear of viruses in Mainframe Computers coming and
> trashing the world's computers!! Viruses will exist if we are using
> computer systems that belong to the family. The odd ones will not get
> the viruses. Try the I love you virus on a Linux machine!! If
> Microsoft were to be broken up -- or let me not get into that, as I am
> not going to disclose which side I lean towards on this BBS, but if MS
> Office were to be given a competition from say Sun's StarOffice (did
> you ever hear of it? It could be here given the right markets), where
> would the Virus worries go? Out of the window!!
WHEN I SAY "HACKING IS STILL AT ITS INFANT" I WAS REFERRING TO 16 YERA OLDS
THAT HAD MANAGED TO HACKED INTO PENTAGON SOPHISTICATED SATELLITE WEAPON
SYSTEM; SOME YEARS BACK; NOT SOME MICKEY MOUSE CHANNEL. AND THOSE ARE THE
DISCOVERED ONES...
THAT'S A VERY PROMISING STATEMENT... NO MONKEY ISLAND.
>
>
> I do hope I have settled the concerns of my Audience and again Thank
> you for contributing to this reading.
>
> Please feel free to call me.
>
>
CONCERNED MARINER
-.-. --- -. -.-. . .-. -. . -.. -- .- .-. .. -. . .-.
END OF MESSAGE.
--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..
--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..--..
Feargal Hogan
I know the the University of Plymouth in the U.K. did some work in this area
many years ago (c. 1987 ).
I read some of the papers when I was there doing my tickets.
It was all very interesting stuff, but but was done on a "Proof of Concept"
basis.
I believe that it was quite a success from that point of view.
But more to the point in question, I read a novel many years ago called "The
Taking of AT/1".
AT/1 stood for Automated Tanker 1 and the book concerned "the world's first
totally automated vessel" which was a VLCC. It had no operational crew on
board, but the insurers insisted on 6 heavily armed security guards.
The operation of the vessel was monitored via satcom at head office (New
York, I think !).
Prateek may have read the book, as he more or less describes the operational
structures exactly in his original post, i.e. tugs, skeleton crews via
helicopter etc.
The outcome of the book was that all the automation worked perfectly, until
...
... another vessel steamed up alongside AT/1 at a distance outside its
collision avoidance range and floated across a very long hose which was
connected up to to AT/1's manifolds and all the oil pumped out. Meanwhile
one of the guards had been bribed and managed to subdue the other 5.
No warnings were sent to the Head Office because none of the ships equipment
was used and there was never a danger of collision.
It was a very interesting read.
While I agree with Prateek's original premise, I would suggest that the main
reason no-one has done it already is that the insurance premium would be too
high !
Prateek Rishi <pri...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IbrQ4.29171$g4.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Folks
>
> I am an ex-Master Mariner and wonder why can we not build FULLY AUTOMATED
> ships carrying large parcels of cargo from one corner of the world to
> another.
>
> Believe me, this is possible.
>
> Just about EVERYTHING can be monitored and controlled sitting in my
Control
> Center ashore. Why are we not doing this till yet? Is there any effort
in
> this direction.
>
> caused the indicator needle to move past the High-Speed trip set-point and
> thus trip the C.O.P.!!))) can be severely disruptive to Bridge Automation
> Procedures, I discount the notion that "cell-phones and further automation
> should not be used on ships!! There are design improvements that can be
> implemented and automation can only be improved, thus REDUCING the burden
on
> the Ship's Crew, reducing the manning on the Ships and making Life at Sea
> more worthwhile, rather than by simply installing Hydraulic Arms and
> reducing the no. of Able Bodied Seamen on the ships!! Quality of the Crew
> can be improved, automation on the ships can be improved and the status of
> the Sea-farer can be brought back.
>
> Please post your comments to this mailing list.
>
> I am also available for setting up chat sessions etc.
>
> Prateek Rishi
> Network Systems Engg.
Prateek Rishi
Thank you for your inputs!
Come to think of it! Maybe Hollywood could buy the idea!! Pretty
cool! Security guards and etc. and then a hose sucks out the Oil!!
With all the Monitoring and the Control being shown to the users, it
would be typical of Hollywood to leave out the basic point that if a
hose was attached, if the tank levels went down, if the stability
changed, if .......... well there are so many issues, why was all that
not communicated over the automation! Unless the (bribed) guard was
spoofing the GPS positions to the HO in NYC!! Well, if Hollywood wants
to make it, they can make any plot interesting! But as the story is
told here, there are a lot of loose ends and maybe that is why the Book
never made it to the Best Seller list - I too did not read the book
but it is a story I have been always discussing with my Cadets and
Shipmates and now being on the other side, with the different
technology, I am more and more convinced that it can happen sooner than
later (The costs have come down!)!
The way I look at it is that the issues behind running a Darkened Ship
are more to do with the World bodies like SOLAS / IMO / USCG and the
like, and the biggest drivers will be the Underwriters. Feargal, you
have caught the pulse of the issue by pointing out the hesitance of the
Underwriters in taking up such a Risk and I really appreciate your
comments here. I do feel that while the initial Insuring of this will
be considerable, ultimately, the whole thing will become just a
commodity and the price-curve will flatten out once the roll-out
becomes standardized.
Tahnk you once again for your Contribution.
Prateek Rishi
In article <8fds96$ib6$1...@gxsn.com>,
--
K & E Gray
Prateek Rishi, during your time as master did you listen to the engineer's
social talk, or venture into the ER? With one ear and one eye you would
soon have worked out that present day technology is not yet ready to do it
by itself.
There are no ship operators ready to pay for the level of technology
required. Aircraft operate for hours at a time and the QA, and associated
cost, required in manufacture and maintenance in the air transport industry
would send a shipping company accountant around the bend. And yes, building
and maintenance standards would have to be greater than the present standard
for aircraft if ships were to go auto on long ocean passages.
Ken Gray.
Prateek Rishi
Ken Gary, On the contrary, if you had had your eyes open inside the
EngineRoom you would have seen the amount of Automation that is present
in today's EngineRooms and you would have known how easy it is to
further the Automation of the complete processes, thus REDUCING THE
MACHINERY MAINTENANCE COSTS (btw, better fuels is one of the options)
and overall costs. Therefore, Stop guessing on what I would have been
doing as a Master on Ships and whether I was a social being with the
rest of the Shipmates! If I were to hazard a guess, you are probably
an Engineer who is trying to hype up the EngineRoom affairs and make
them more complicated than they are. I am not going on this bulliten
board to discuss designing of what I am talking, but let me tell you
that the Monitoring and Control of Machinery is "only a process" and
much Automation has been achieved.
As for QA/QC, that is the whole point, we can have better QA/QC for
Continuous Running Machinery too. You are quite correct in saying that
the standards would have to be greater than those for aircraft. Why
shy away from that? As for the accountants, they are already round the
bend! While they brought about the the birth of the FOCs and all of US
and many of the Traditional Maritime Nations flagged out to the off-
shore Registers these boys made their numbers. These FOCs then looked
for the cheaper manning of ships given that adequate automation would
allow for minimized levels of Competence, and then again these numbers
people looked all over the world to crew with the cheapest options and
longer stints at sea, I am sure that they are now losing their marbles
as they find they can not go more Eastwords to look for cheaper
manning! Therefore, I would not look inside the Shipping Company alone
but have a more broad vision to this.
As a favour to yourself, I had to clip my signature off and paste it on
top!
The rest is your option!
I do thank you anyway, for your contribution to this thread and hope
there are more who can spell out their concerns here and I shall
address them!
Meanwhile, I have had more sea-time in the Engine Room doing breakdown
and preventive maintenance than many Deck Dept. folks of our times,
therefore, keep your comments about my venturing to the E/R or
listening to just "social talk" of the Engineers to your self!
Prateek Rishi
In article <391ca358@grissom>,
--
Prateek Rishi
Ken Gary, On the contrary, if you had had your eyes open inside the
Prateek Rishi
--
Bilgeman
->>I am an ex-Master Mariner and wonder why can we not build FULLY AUTOMATED
ships carrying large parcels of cargo from one corner of the world to
another.<<-
Bilge- Sure it could be done, the question is would it be economically
feasible?
-Removing the crew would mean no accomodations, plumbing, galley and stores.
-Minimal A/C systems, necessary only for the electronic package that monitors
and operates the vessel.
-No spare parts stowage...'cos who's gonna use 'em?
But...
Your port infrastructure is going to require vast enhancement. Maintenance
downtime is going to have to be carried out somewhere,(a shipyard?)...and with
accomodation available for the workforce nearby and the warehouse/s with the
necessary spares on hand.
I'm not sure you'd get permission for "abandoned operation" without building
in a systems redundancy several orders of magnitude above what is common
today...
...and lest we forget, you'll have to sell this concept to freight companies
and more pointedly, their P&I club...good luck!
Assuming you got through all of the above, you'd need a crystal ball to
determine if the useful life of the vessel would coincide with the target
market you're after...SeaLand's SL-7's come to mind...and what kind of market
there would be for your obsolete tonnage...wanna bet how grateful CSX was for
the Army's interest in converting the SL-7's to Fast Sealift Ships?...if the
Army hadn't come to the rescue, those SL-7's woulda been VERY pricey
"houseboats".
(BTW...scoot over to Bayonne for a gander at an SL-7).
That all said, it wouldn't surprise me if the industry does go to something
very much like what you describe...but by that time, we'll probably be driving
Buicks to the moon.
Cheers;
"Mutiny is a Management Tool".
"Select your Tattoo while you're Sober".
Prateek Rishi
Hey Bilgeman!
While we still wait for the Buicks to the Moon, (I imagine you have
heard of the Mir being funded for the next 5 years by a European
company (from Amsterdam?) for "tourism purposes" and have taken in a
few Discovery Channel shows on Moon travel and life out there) multiple
levels of redundancy is cheaply available today! Communications
bandwidth is crashing down in prices. I am personally balancing the
budget to get in a T-1 line into the home soon! (No, not xDSL! Go T-1
today, next year we may need to upgrade it to a T-45 if TimeWarner and
ABC can not live together on my Cable coming into the house!)
As I said, it is only the cost that has been stopping the development.
As for as the port infrastructure, well, not really, to move the
Shipowners and the P&I clubs is still easier than getting the Port
Authorities involved. Ofcourse, I have a plan for that. As for the
maintenance accommodation, at the port, let me say this:- The "ship"
can be in layup once a year and get painted over by Expert Painters and
de-scalers, not by cooks and stewards at sea, therefore, we prefer a
lay-up of the ship for 3-4 days per cycle (24 months or more?). During
this time, the whole electronics package can be re-conditioned --
actually I see it being replaced for new every 24 months as the newer
technology will be superior!
Anyway, can't be at my PC for long today, have to run.
Thank you for you comments and for your contribution to this thread!
I'd love to hear more from you! I liked your sign-on name and your
signature! But AOL SUCKS!! :-)
Sorry, but I am from that half of the world where there is no AOL!
Cheers!!
PRATEEK RISHI
In article <20000517144827...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
bilg...@aol.com (Bilgeman) pondered:
--
MM
Prateek Rishi wrote:
>
> Folks
>
> I am an ex-Master Mariner and wonder why can we not build FULLY AUTOMATED
> ships carrying large parcels of cargo from one corner of the world to
> another.
>
------------------------------------------clip----------------------
>
> Prateek Rishi
> Network Systems Engg.
> AT&T
> New Jersey, USA
> Tel:- 973-644-6541
> e-mail:- pratee...@att.com
I am a Chief Engineer of ultra-modern large ro-ro vessel. We have an
engine-room
crew of three engineers, repairman and electrician. Everybody has hands
full of work every day keeping the ship running safely and efficiently.
It is quite easy to upgrade automation to such a level that the
operation and control of the machinery and navigation of the ship at
open sea does not need "local control" as you mention. But in the real
world the problem is reliability of those very complicated mechanical
and electronic systems used onboard today.
If we want to sail with totally unmanned ship we must start by
simplifying the propulsion and generator systems radically and after
that build an automation system for controlling these SIMPLE systems.
I cannot think of diesel or steam turbine plant with their auxiliary
systems running 100% reliably for longer times, it simply is not
possible.
Only gas turbine plant with clean fuel could be enough simple and
reliable.
And still we need at least one engineer onboard all the time for
emergency repairs ,fire safety and switching over the systems to manual
control when automation fails!
M.Marttinen
Prateek Rishi
We needed a Chief Engineer here to respond! You have caught the pusle
by saying that taking the control from local to remote is not really
that big an issue. What is the real issue is the mechanical systems
failure and the immediate reparis of those, to prevent future
mechanical failures.
Those are the issues that need to be worked on!
Thanks for your input!
Prateek Rishi
> It is quite easy to upgrade automation to such a level that the
> operation and control of the machinery and navigation of the ship at
> open sea does not need "local control" as you mention. But in the real
> world the problem is reliability of those very complicated mechanical
> and electronic systems used onboard today.
>
> If we want to sail with totally unmanned ship we must start by
> simplifying the propulsion and generator systems radically and after
> that build an automation system for controlling these SIMPLE systems.
> I cannot think of diesel or steam turbine plant with their auxiliary
> systems running 100% reliably for longer times, it simply is not
> possible.
> Only gas turbine plant with clean fuel could be enough simple and
> reliable.
>
> And still we need at least one engineer onboard all the time for
> emergency repairs ,fire safety and switching over the systems to
manual
> control when automation fails!
>
> M.Marttinen
>
--
Frode Hjønnevåg
One thing really makes me wonder, how can ideas like this come up by a
Master Mariner. I do not know anything about Mr. Rishi's experiences as a
seaman, but obviously, he has not been into much problems.
All kinds of unforeseen incidents happen on board ships today. Most of
them are of a technical character, and are results of the masses of
technical equipment on board ships today.. This goes also for brand new
vessels, eventhough they are tested and perfectionized in every way
possible. More technical equipment and more advanced technical equipment
means that the probability of something going wrong rises..
The thing is that the technology is available, but it is not reliable
enough at this point. It may work nicely over a period of time, but
according to all experiences: Sooner or later something has to go wrong..
And it does...
For comparison: In the USA, you have railroads all across the
continent.. The technology has been there for decades. Why don't they
automate them?? There are much less probability of unforeseen incidents
along a railroad then the open sea.. And the damn thing goes by rails!!!!
And finally, Mr. Rishi, please do not compare your experience in the
engine with engineers, eventhough you have been into the 'dungeons' once in
a while.. It really puts all of us other Deck Officers in a bad light..
Master Mariner or not, you just dont insinuate such things.
Brgds
A Norwegian Deck Officer
MM <mi...@sci.fi> wrote in message news:392E2983...@sci.fi...
>
>
> Prateek Rishi wrote:
> >
> > Folks
> >
> > I am an ex-Master Mariner and wonder why can we not build FULLY
AUTOMATED
> > ships carrying large parcels of cargo from one corner of the world to
> > another.
> >
> ------------------------------------------clip----------------------
> >
> > Prateek Rishi
> > Network Systems Engg.
> > AT&T
> > New Jersey, USA
> > Tel:- 973-644-6541
> > e-mail:- pratee...@att.com
>
> I am a Chief Engineer of ultra-modern large ro-ro vessel. We have an
> engine-room
> crew of three engineers, repairman and electrician. Everybody has hands
> full of work every day keeping the ship running safely and efficiently.
>
Prateek Rishi
Thanks for your comments. I wished to post this message directly to
yourself at your e-mail address but chose to stick to the decorum and
continue posting to the BBS.
Firstly, let me get on the defensive and say that I did not, in any way
mean to insinuate or construe anything that might have crossed your
mind while reading about my visiting the "dungeons" as opposed to
others. Please note that that was said as a retort to another posting
where someone had questioned my visiting the E/R .............. just
as you have questioned my experiences with trouble while at Sea! I
apologize upfront if you are embarrassed you in any way!
However, let me tell you that I have seen more hurt at Sea than the
average Sailor sees and believe it or not, I DO FEEL STRONGLY FOR THE
SHIPPING COMMUNITY THAT IS AT SEA!!
The ISM code will discuss all the Unforeseen incidents and by way of
records of Accidents and etc. will always narrow it down to either
mechanical failure or systems failure or Human error! How many of
them, have we seen today where you can put down the "CAUSE OF THE
INCIDENT" as mechanical failure where ultimately, it has not been the
person responsible to maintain or inspect the
machinery/device/rope/rope-stopper/chain-stopper/wire/hand-
tool/personal safety gear/etc. What I am saying is that the code has
not been written by Seafarers but by lawyers who will be able to
absolve the Ship Owner in some way or the other from any relief that
may be due to the Seafarer due to the incident. This is a point to
note. While it can be discussed whether relief is due at all to the
sailor who has undergone personal injury or to the charterer, who has
undergone personal loss-of-time, delay in delivery, etc. etc.
ultimately there is hardly any way that the ship-owner can be held
responsible. And there is every way that a Ship's Master or his crew
can be personally held responsible for any "incident" that happens on
the ship. So what do we have, people are going crazy in signing
documents and doing more paperwork than what a sailor really needs
being doing. I call upon all Deck Officers and Engine Officers to sit
back and think about the amount of paperwork that has increased due to
this. Ofcourse, all this is not bad, and there are intelligent and
systematic ways to be able to complete all that in good order, but let
us leave that to another thread for discussion.
For the purposes of Ship-Automation, the only incidents that can happen
are those in the Engine-Room. Why have a diesel engine running on HFO
and having so many auxiliaries? This can be tackled by newer designs
of machinery propulsion.
All the incidents you refer to being of a Technical character, let me
hear about them!! I strongly disagree to this statement and counter
this by saying that only a very minute percentage of Incidents can be
put in as those of a Technical Nature. Ofcourse, there needs to be
certain reasonableness to it, but once a person is handed the
Certificate of "Competency", he is either Competent or Incompetent for
the job, and as long as the Certificate is held, he is Competent!
While this is also a little unreasonable, the fact is that today, a
majority of incidents are attributable to HUMAN ERROR due to negligence
or incompetence! If it is a technical failure, that only shows that
the technology was not tested enough or that the design really failed
because there were no provisions for working at sea built into the
design! Therefore, there are hardly any concluded incidents where
failures are due to technology.
Good and Great Technology is available, it only costs a little more to
design and implement. What it does is that it REMOVES the number of
lives at sea! And that is what the tone of my very first posting has
been. To reduce the lives at sea! Not cut costs alone and not
overload work of people, but to use technology to (1) Take the work
load off the Ship-staff (2) To cut manning EXTREMELY in a phased
approach, over the next 5-10 years.
This may seem to be a tall order, but it actually is not. The
technology is there. The only requirement is the co-ordination of
various Organizations, again, seeking their involvement in phases!
As for your remark on the volume of technology being the cause of a
greater volume of "incidents" on board, I beg to differ again! It is
technology that is causing us to discuss this on a news-group over the
Internet, and to pick up the pick up the phone and talk to them! My
grandfather never could do this! I hope my grandchildren can witness
what I propose as everyday situation! Had we not embraced newer
technologies, we would still have been praying for the wind and holding
up our shirts for sails!!
Quote:- For comparison: In the USA, you have railroads all
across the continent.. The technology has been there for decades. Why
don't they automate them?? There are much less probability of
unforeseen incidents along a railroad then the open sea.. And the damn
As for rail-roads, why USA, everywhere it s the same, there are Minimal
people on the RailRoad! As for the Underground in most metropolitan
cities, please note that these ARE AUTOMATED and the system is really
monitoring to put in the brakes! Not to run the train, but to put in
the brakes, as per the signals he receives every few hundred yards!
Here is an abstract form the London Underground Web-site:
QUOTE
Introduction
Safety is at the heart of London Underground Limited (LUL) and has the
active support and commitment of the LUL Board. The design of the
system itself has many vital safety features, particularly the “ fail
safe" signaling system which activates a train's brakes automatically
if it passes a signal set at danger or approaches a terminal too fast.
The technology of the system is supported by operational procedures and
rules and by a well-trained workforce. The total effort to maintain and
improve safety is driven by a structured safety management system and
the setting of Annual Safety Objectives, supported by integrated Safety
Improvement Programmes. As a result, railways and especially the
Underground, are one of the safest forms of passenger transport.
UNQUOTE
Brgds
Prateek Rishi