image provided courtesy of Cospas-Sarsat

Back on February 1^st 2009, though boat owners and ship riders didn’t hear it, there were celebrations all over the rescue world as the COSPAS-SARSAT system stopped processing and reporting 121.5 distress signals.  The hours of lost sleep spent chasing after ghost 121.5 EPIRB signals that were actually some other transmitter (like a radio tower or an ATM machine…seriously) is beyond measure. While I appreciated racking up flight hours on the government’s dime; the Coast Guard, along with SAR organizations the world over, have turned a lot of fuel into noise searching for….well…nothing.  Only one out of fifty 121.5 alerts have been genuine distress situations.  An end to all that warrants at least a little celebration.  But even as the date came and went and the chatter about the switch increased – the first problem with the 406 EPIRBs is already showing itself: news release after news release touts the 406 as the “digital” beacon; more powerful, no-waiting, and accurate to just a few yards.  The problem is that none of that is completely true – not mostly – and only sort-of.  And since recreational boaters and professional mariners are making purchasing decisions about the things, and they are lifesaving devices, I wanted to clear a few things up about the “able-to-leap-buildings-in-a-single bound” 406.

MISNOMER

Most Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons do not actually “Indicate” their “Position.”  Without an onboard GPS – your EPIRB, any EPIRB, simply transmits a signal that contains the exact same data regardless of where in the world you happen to be. While the position of a non-GPS enabled 406 is calculated with greater accuracy than the old 121.5 beacons – it is done in exactly the same way – by relaying the analog (that’s right – I said it) 406 signal back down to earth for calculation – just like the 121.5s did.

It’s About the Birds

To understand the real benefits of the 406, you really have to understand the satellites they talk to.  The COSPAS-SARSAT system is made up two very different types of spacecraft:  geosynchronous and low earth orbiting.  Geosynchronous (synched up with the geography below them) stay fixed above the equator at specific longitudes – looking straight down at the earth below them from around 22,000 miles high – giving them a very wide look at the earth.  Low earth orbiting satellites (LEOSAR) travel around the planet at different rates, and because they fly much lower than their geo-synched brothers (between 500 and 550 miles above the earth), they see a much smaller picture of the surface.  If all that seems like too much information – the important points are that one kind of satellite orbits the earth, and the other kind stays fixed in space above it.

One big advantage to the 406 is its ability – with its higher power – to reach out (22,000 miles into space) and be heard by the GEOSAR satellites.  You know, the ones way up there above the equator that don’t move and see HUGE pieces of the earth. Positioned around the globe so they can see everything between the 70^th parallels – these high fliers are the real engine to the 406 machine.  Just as soon as these guys hear that 406 MHz pulse (a half-second long every 50 seconds), encoded with that “digital” information, it immediately retransmits it back down to earth – including the beacon number and your exact latitude and longitude provided by the on-board GPS.  The signal also includes your course and speed giving rescuers very accurate – real-time data – to get straight to you.

Without an On-Board GPS – Everything Changes

Without GPS data in the pulse, the GEOSAR Satellites – and all that extra power spent sending them a signal – do nothing.  Though they hear the signal, you could be anywhere in their massive window on the world so they have no idea where the beacon is coming from.  Your super-digital, high-powered 406 just digressed and the LEOSAR’s do all the work.  The position of the beacon is determined by Doppler shift.  As the satellite passes over the beacon (and just as with 121.5s, you may have to wait for it) and hears the 406 MHz signal, it retransmits the signal back to earth to one of forty-five Local User Terminal (LUTs) around the earth.  Some very serious math is then applied to determine where exactly the beacon is (or was) as the satellite passed overhead.  Though much more accurate than the 121.5 signals, and immune to old LEOSAR blind spots, these positions can still be off by as much as 3 miles and may be up to 40 minutes old; older if the satellite picked up the 406 outside the view of a LUT (see map).  And while this is way better than the 121.5 accuracy (up to 12 miles off) and timeliness, you should consider the benefits of the on board GPS 406 over the other varieties before making a decision.

What 150 Bucks More Gets You:

I’m not talking about brands; I’m talking about types. So the price difference may be more or less.  But given that we are talking about an “emergency” beacon – usually used from the water (meaning your boat is gone) let’s just call the price difference “peanuts”: The difference between a 406 with an on board GPS and one without is best expressed this way. You can let the rescuers know where you are – accurate to within yards and including drift data – every 50 seconds; or you can let the rescuers know where you might have been – accurate to within a few miles – a while ago with a non-GPS 406.  Sure, you’ll meet the requirements with the less expensive model, but I promise you won’t miss the extra money sitting (hopefully) in your life raft.

Some readers will notice I haven’t even mentioned the third kind of 406 – the GPS-linked variety that uses data from your vessel’s on-board navigation device.  It’s a great idea so long as you’re staying with your vessel, and you’re under power, and the batteries last.  How likely is that in an emergency that requires an EPIRB?  If you have to abandon ship, or the ship abandons you, the on board navigation system isn’t coming with you….and neither is accurate GPS data.

Bottom Line:

The advantages of global coverage and registration data available with 406 EPIRBS are phenomenal– but consider the following when deciding which type of 406 to purchase:

• 406 EPRIBS are four times more accurate than the 121.5 EPIRBS were.
• 406 EPIRBS with on board GPS are two-hundred times more accurate.

So all 406’s are not created equal (not even close) – and if you want the fullest digital advantage available and really want to help rescue crews get more sleep, make sure yours has a GPS.

For more information on the COSPAS-SARSAT System, approved devices, proper beacon registration, and more information about digital and analog signal processing than any one person should know – visit www.cospas-sarsat.org

disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Coast Guard.

Note: This article was first published in February of 2009

 The technologies are grouped under four main headings:

• Ship design
• Propulsion
• Machinery
• Operation & Maintenance

Combining these areas and treating them together as an integrated solution can result in truly efficient ship operations.

The following are design concepts and their associated contribution to a more efficient ship design.

A larger ship will in most cases offer greater transport efficiency  – “Efficiency of Scale” effect.  A larger ship can transport more cargo at the  same speed with less power per cargo unit.  Limitations may be met in port handling.

Regression analysis of recently built ships show that a 10% larger ship will give about 4-5% higher transport efficiency. 

Minimising the use of ballast (and other unnecessary weight) results in lighter displacement and thus lower resistance. The resistance is more or less directly proportional to the displacement of the vessel. However there must be enough ballast to immerse the propeller in the water, and provide sufficient stability (safety) and acceptable sea keeping behaviour (slamming).

Removing 3000 tons of permanent ballast from a PCTC and increasing the beam by 0.25 metres to achieve the same stability will reduce the propulsion power demand by 8.5%.

The use of lightweight structures can reduce the ship weight. In structures that do not contribute to ship global strength, the use of aluminium or some other lightweight material may be an attractive solution.

The weight of the steel structure can also be reduced. In a conventional ship, the steel weight can be lowered by 5-20%, depending on the amount of high tensile steel already in use.

A 20% reduction in steel weight will give a reduction of ~9% in propulsion power  requirements. However, a 5% saving is more realistic, since high tensile steel has already been used to some extent in many cases.

Finding the optimum length and hull fullness ratio (Cb) has a big impact on ship resistance.

A high L/B ratio means that the ship will have smooth lines and low wave making resistance. On the other hand, increasing the length means a larger wetted surface area, which can have a negative effect on total resistance.

A too high block coefficient (Cb) makes the hull lines too blunt and leads to increased resistance.

Adding 10-15% extra length to a typical product tanker can reduce the power demand by more than 10%.

The Interceptor is a metal plate that is fitted vertically to the transom of a ship, covering most of the breadth of the transom. This plate bends the flow over the aft-body of the ship downwards, creating a similar lift effect as a conventional trim wedge due to the high pressure area behind the propellers. The interceptor has proved to be more effective than a conventional trim wedge in some cases, but so far it has been used only in cruise vessels and RoRos. An interceptor is cheaper to retrofit  than a trim wedge.

1-5% lower propulsion power demand. Corresponding improvement of up to 4% in total energy demand for a typical ferry.

A ducktail is basically a lengthening of the aft ship. It is usually 3-6 meter long. The basic idea is to lengthen the effective waterline and make the wetted transom smaller. This has a positive effect on the resistance of the ship. In some cases the best results are achieved when a ducktail is used together with an interceptor.

4-10% lower propulsion power demand. Corresponding improvement of 3-7% in total energy consumption for a typical ferry.

The shaft lines should be streamlined. Brackets should have a streamlined shape. Otherwise this increases the resistance and disturbs the flow to the propeller.

Up to 3% difference in power demand between poor and good design. A corresponding improvement of up to 2% in total energy consumption for a typical ferry.

The skeg should be designed so that it directs the flow evenly to the propeller disk. At lower speeds it is usually beneficial to have more volume on the lower part of the skeg and as little as possible above the propeller shaftline. At the aft end of the skeg the flow should be attached to the skeg, but with as low flow speeds as possible.

1.5%-2% lower propulsion power demand with good design. A corresponding improvement of up to 2% in total energy consumption for a container vessel.

The water flow disturbance from openings to bow thruster tunnels and sea chests can be high. It is therefore beneficial to install a scallop behind each opening. Alternatively a grid that is perpendicular to the local flow direction can be installed. The location of the opening is also important.

Designing all openings properly and locating them correctly can give up to 5% lower power demand than with poor designs. For a container vessel, the corresponding improvement in total energy consumption is almost 5%.

Compressed air is pumped into a recess in the bottom of the ship’s hull. The air builds up a “carpet” that reduces the frictional resistance between the water and the hull surface. This reduces the propulsion power demand. The challenge is to ensure that the air stays below the hull and does not escape. Some pumping power is needed.

Saving in fuel consumption:

• Tanker: ~15 % 
• Container: ~7.5 % 
• PCTC: ~8.5 % 
• Ferry: ~3.5%

Part 2 of this series focuses on ship propulsion technology.  

A graphical representation of NEPTUNE Canada's subsea architecture, image courtesy NEPTUNE Canada

By Captain Patrick Donovan, R/V Thomas G. Thompson, University of Washington  

As mariners we encounter them all the time… a yellow buoy, a white ship, the daily routine of transmitting weather observations.  They are references to scientific research taking place in our world, a world habitually focused on trade, commerce, profit, and loss. Sometimes unnoticed, the commercialized aspect of life on the sea comes in contact with the academic pursuit of knowledge.

Often these references arrive in the form of a Notice to Mariners.  An update to a chart, a submerged mooring, plotted somewhere along our track line. A concern? Maybe.  But then you see the depth, 2600 meters. Your deeply laden vessel only draws 12m. No problem.

But what is this mooring, and why would someone put it there? What is so interesting at that depth that someone would travel out into the middle of nowhere, a place that in normal seagoing life is often part of a route but never a destination, and install a subsea mooring in 2600 meters of water?

The answer is almost infinite. Ocean waves, swell, temperature, sea life, chemical makeup of the water column, salinity, gravity, motion, oxygen, nitrates, sediment, etc. You name it, and there is an instrument for it, or at least one in development. The ocean environment is still so vastly unknown, there are new and unexplainable things happening on a daily basis. We know more about the moon than we know about our own ocean, and in turn have a shared responsibility to find out more.

Though it can be one of the most tranquil, docile, and beautiful environments, the ocean can in a matter of minutes turn into one of the harshest, most unforgiving places on earth. Our ability to understand and predict weather patterns on the surface has led to increased safety for mariners by 100 fold, but understanding the weather is only part of the problem.  We don’t have, and never will have the ability to control it. And thus lies the greatest challenge in attempting to study a particular region. Access.

The ROV ROPOS is lowered into the sea with scientific instruments in its detachable tool basket. Photo courtesy NEPTUNE Canada

The only available access to the ocean is by ship, and the types of vessels needed are few and far between. Oceanographic research vessels must be seagoing vessels capable of handling large parties of scientific personnel, and hosting a variety of equipment, including remotely operated vehicles (ROV’s) and manned submersibles. They are expensive to operate, and offer little profit for commercial operators.

Scientists spend years writing grants, fighting for ship time, mobilizing a small army’s worth of equipment to remote outcroppings of ports to meet an available ship, transit out to the site of interest, only to be thwarted by impersonal and unbiased nasty weather.

A group of researchers from the University of Victoria, British Columbia, have found a solution to this issue by building a remote underwater ocean observatory.

Ocean Networks Canada (ONC) consists of two-subsea cable networks- called Venus (inshore) and Neptune (offshore). Located off the coast of Vancouver Island, these networks entail groups of instruments linked together by fiber optic cables.  The network uses the power of the Internet to bring real time observations from underwater instruments right into the offices and classrooms of researchers around the world, regardless of the weather.

Some of the instrument types of instruments available to date include:

• Conductivity-temperature-depth
• Current meters
• Hydrophones, sonars, echosounders
• Acoustic Doppler current profilers
• Bottom pressure sensors
• Chemical and gas sensors for measuring carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, nitrates, etc.
• Seismometers, gravimeters and accelerometers
• High-resolution still-frame and video cameras with lights
• Microbe and plankton samplers and microbial incubators
• Turbidity sensors, transmissometers, sediment traps
• Benthic flow simulation chamber

The network offers early warning for potential disasters, such as earthquakes and tsunami’s. The hope is that with these instruments in place, the data will be available in the future to understand and predict such phenomena.

An inquisitive robot- Wally inspecting invaders to his home on the sea floor in 2100 m of water. Copyright 2011 CSSF ROPOS.COM

There is even a remotely operated crawler with HD video, lights, and all different types of sensors, that can be driven around from a shore-side control station in Germany. This miniature bulldozer – named Wally due to its resemblance to the Disney Pixar’s Wall-E, resides on the end of a 30m tether, and provides researchers with mobile access to his realm “wally land”.

The primary installation of the fiber optic main line was done by commercial cable ships, working under contract similar to that of a phone company. The auxiliary lines, instruments, and nodes have been installed by oceanographic research vessels, using an ROV to map out and survey cable routes, install instruments, and lay cable.

The Canadian Scientific Research Facility’s ROV-named ROPOS has done the bulk of the installation and maintenance. ROPOS has the ability to latch on to instrument platforms and fly them down to the sea floor to be plugged in to the network. It also has the ability to lay cable using an innovative system called ROCLS, or Remote Operated Cable Laying System. ROCLS is essentially spool of wire in a specialized geared frame designed to attach to the bottom of the ROV. The ROV can fly along with the cable reel and pay it out as they go, laying the cable along a pre-determined path on the sea floor.

The instruments are designed to be plug and play.  They use wet-mate connectors (which look like children’s toys made by Nerf) that can be plugged in by an ROV, allowing the instrument to be easily removed for maintenance/updating, and/or moved to other areas of the network.

The ability to change out and add additional instrumentation is a significant component of these systems. This is what will allow the networks to grow and evolve as interests and focuses change. The scientific process can be very dynamic, in that the course of the research will often change as more is discovered and understood about a particular subject.

Now in its second year of operation, ONC has gone through its share of trials and tribulations. Cable and instrument failures have beleaguered the network. The system requires annual maintenance, thus requiring ship time. Ultimately though, they have been successful. There has been a great deal of interest in further developing instrumentation and data collection, and the hope is that over time the network will become more interactive.

In the United States, the National Science Foundation is in the process of installing a similar network of instrumentation through its Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). The objective is to create an expansive network following the NEPTUNE concept, over time encompassing the oceans of the western hemisphere.  There are multiple research institutions taking place in the implementation of OOI, each taking charge of a critical piece of the infrastructure. The networks will be high power and bandwidth, streaming real time observations, data, and live HD video. They will provide long-term access to an environment where up until recently, only a glimpse has been available.

Like anything else, these networks will evolve over time, with lessons learned and changes brought about by technology and innovation. The concept is sound, and the results proven. The research community has come a long way from the bathyscaphe and the Aqualung, and even the submersible. These tools, while still significant part of the foundation of oceanography, are dwarfed by the shear enormity of potential for the future of cabled observatories.

For more information on this project please visit:
www.neptunecanada.ca/
www.ropos.com
www.oceanobservatories.org/

10: GPS Enabled Buoys

Tired of reading notice to mariner corrections about buoys that drifted off location? Why not place satellite tracking devices on them? The consumer electronics world has a myriad of devices capable of tracking cars, planes and boats, so why can’t the USCG track buoys? The device could be simple, a toughened version of the SPOT Messenger, but the real magic would happen online. Data from each buoy could be aggregated and pushed out to a website online and, eventually, directly to ECDIS systems aboard ships. Real time updates would certainly make chart corrections simpler but it would also serve a critical function the next time a Tsunami hits our shore.

9: E-Loran

For  reasons from providing redundancy for GPS navigation to powering the next round of electronic devices, capable of positioning regardless of having a celestial view, eLoran has captured the excitement of gCaptain editors and forum members… that is until the USCG announced the termination of the Loran system. The way to a better future is clearly to invest in technology infrastructure not cut programs with great promise for improved efficiency and safety. But don’t give up hope, eLoran had great potential to improve maritime operations and safety , a fact that hasn’t changed. Let’s revisit this technology and move it from the dead files back to the front burner.

8: Rescue 21 Public Interface

When a ship sends a distress alert the USCG’s Rescue 21 computers start lighting up with activity. Location information is pulled from the distress vessel’s DSC and EPIRB, vessel registration documents are automatically cross-referenced and an operator fills in the blanks with specific details about the distress. All good information correlated and processed by system for the digital age.  What happens next is decidedly 20th centerury in its approach… A CG VHF operator gets on channel 16 and begins broadcasting laced with sparse details. If it’s a large ship, additional information might be broadcast to your GMDSS console, however this too is 20th century technology and the information sent is sparse. What we need is a public interface to Rescue 21 developed by the guys who built Facebook that sends you text alerts and buttons for “nearby distresses”…. slicking on the button would give you a screen full of data including photos of the vessel, crew compliment, MSDS info about its cargo, etc. Plus a big Google map that plots both the distressed ships and all nearby vessels capable of assisting in the SAR efforts.  Some of the information in the Rescue 21 system is confidential, but much of it is publicly available.  The USCG just needs the willingness to share.

7: More Secret Weapons

In a recent interview with CG-721, the weapons development team that we’ve nicknamed Skunk Works of the Coast Guard, we learned of new non-lethal weapons being developed to get the attention of “unresponsive” vessels. We also learned of a new computer assisted super gun called the Gyro Stabilized Weapons System which is the ultimate in cool weapons technology. gCaptain has done many posts on weapons at sea and has learned that technology from magnetic robots to anti-pirate lasers is being developed commercially for use against pirates.  Why can’t the Coast Guard join the game?  If the US Military can justify billions of dollars to budget the real skunk works, why can’t it give just one billion to the USCG to play around with? What gCaptain wants is more secret projects, projects that are highly classified, projects that will help the CG fight pirates and save mariners lost at sea. Sometimes transparency isn’t a good thing. Sometimes, to promote progress, what’s really needed is military grade secrecy and a pile of warm cash, which is why we are willing to put this idea on hold until the federal budget is balanced.

6: Join The Anti-Pirate Game With A New Website

The situation in Somalia is only getting worse.  Recently, a ship, with a freshly disembarked security team, was taken hostage.   Besides SEAL teams, no one has the experience with non-compliant vessel boardings and interdictions like the Coast Guard and it’s time for them to step up their game.  First order of business is to test and verify all the new weapons and anti-boarding systems being sold by commercial vendors. Is an anti-pirate laser effective in warding off pirates? What about a 300-Gallons of mace? And what about the security teams? Have any of them received government training, or at least verification? This is why the USCG needs a new website titled anti-pirate.mil which, like Consumer Reports, tests these systems – along with security providers – and gives their stamp of approval. But approval is just the start, the website would also be filled with YouTube video of weapons being fired and pro/con lists of each device.

5. SAR UAV’s

gCaptain may sound like a broken record on this one, but that’s only because the idea is a true no-brainer and we are surprised by the CG’s lack of interest in the subject. News reports come out daily about the success of UAVs in Iraq, Afghanistan and, just yesterday, Libya.  UAV’s clearly work.

When a distress call is made from the high seas, helicopters and/or C-130′s are launched.  These are expensive and put their crews into harms way. What the CG needs is a fleet of relatively inexpensive UAVs to support search and rescue operations. Every distress call received by the USCG should be followed by the immediate launch of a UAV and, when the sinking vessel can’t be found, a dozen UAV’s should be launched – all equipped with thermal imaging cameras – to find survivors. At a cost of just over $100,000 for a fully capable FURY model this answer is cheap, easy and effective.

4. Internet Communication

Admiral Thad Allen was famous for his push into Social Media but his sucessor as Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, has pulled back the reigns on participation in social media. Part of this has been to refocus on the core missions of the Coast Guard, but the push back also comes from top leadership advisers who question the usefulness of social media and blogs like gCaptain. What has become lost is the simple fact that the internet is a very useful tool for communication. The articles gCaptain writes, the YouTube videos, the Facebook shares, are all means of communicating ideas…. something every organization should utilize to their benefit.  Communicating via the internet can appear difficult and time consuming, but it’s proven to be highly effective.  The US Navy understands this, why not the Coast Guard?

3. Port Information iPhone App

Port information is critical to the success of a short voyage from sea-buoy to dock, but it continues to be limited.  This information is contained in a dated volume of publications updated with scissors and glue, weather information comes over facsimile and computerized voice recordings and no information is provided about your pilot until he stands next to you on the bridge. What we need is an iPhone app!  Open the app and you get a list of ships entering the port and just like the arrivals board at your local airport, you can instantly see which ships are on time, delayed or in a holding pattern. Weather streams into another page but it is augmented with local current and wind data. Each ship has a page with basic information as does the pilot assigned to each ship… and both contain contact information so they can call each other as the launch is still making it’s way out to the ship.  Finally, there might be a message board where ship captains, pilots and VTS could exchange information in real time.  Facebook has been doing this for years, why doesn’t the Coast Guard do the same thing for ships?

 2. Lifeboat Release Hook X-Prize

Lifeboat releasing hooks has been a hot topic in the industry for years. Countless fatalities have happened for the simple reason that the mechanisms that allow you to release a lifeboat from the davit wires are not failsafe in their design. IMO sub-committees have been formed to long at the problem and lifeboat manufacturers have been put under intense pressure to improve their systems yet no solutions have been found to be 100% safe. X-Prize is an organization that funds the impossible. From getting back to the moon, to developing new technology for fighting oil spills, the organization funds a prize for people invent the impossible. We need to fix the problem of lifeboat fatalities and nothing says you are serious like a million dollar prize. Sure $1 million is a lot of money for an organization which struggles to meet its budget but, with $10.34 billion allocated to the Coast Guard in the 2012 Presidential Budget, the figure seems small compaired to the number of lives it may save.

1. The idea we missed…

At gCaptain, we believe in the power of mariners communicating online to solve problems, both big and small. Our readers help each other every day by posting questions and answers on the forum. We have come up with 9 ideas for maritime technology the Coast Guard could implement today, but there are dozen more in the minds of our community.  What is the number one idea you would like the Coast Guard to pursue?

To learn more about marine airbags and their use for moving and launching large ships, we reached out to Song Tao of Qingdao Evergreen Shipping Supplies Co.,Ltd. Let’s here what he has to say…

What were the first uses of air bags in the launching of ships?

The history of marine air bag ship launching dates back to 1981. Xiao Qinghe ship repair and building shipyard, located in Jinan city of Shangdong Province, launched a 60 DWT tank barge with air bag suspension on January 20, 1981. Seven air bags were deployed in that project. One was 2 meters in diameter and 6 meters long and used for elevating.  The remaining six air bags were 0.8 meters x 6 meters long and acted as the rollers. The first intention of that trial launch was to develop a prompt, less landform limited ship launching method for warfare purposes.

How has the technology advanced since then?

Over the past twenty years, the airbag ship launching system has made advancements in not only the air bag, but also the ship launching/landing technology. The first generation air bags used a rubber dipped canvas as a reinforcement layer to form the air chamber trunk. Two cone-shaped molds were then used to make the ends and everything was stuck together.

With today’s air bags, the whole-enlacing-technology used for manufacturing is done together.  Rubber dipped synthetic-tyre-cords are used as the reinforcement layers with the trunk and two cone-shaped ends made at the same time.  Everything is then-laced together, so the air bag doesn’t have any joints. Due to the development of rubber chemistry, the performance of the rubber employed in the latest air bags is highly enhanced and about 15 times that of the first generation bag with the same specifications.

The launching and landing technology has also developed. In the beginning, only small and flat bottom ships located on a fabricated slope could be launched with air bags. Now this technology is more flexible and less limited by the ship and landform. Now any type of ship with a DWT below 55,000 and in a place with enough launching space can be launched using air bags. The launching slope even can be sloped upward.  It has really developed into a cutting edge technology for launching ships, and especially useful for some marine emergencies.

They look very similar to Yokohama Fenders, how do they differ?

The main use of Yokohama fenders and Evergreen air bags are definitely different. It is well known that Yokohoma fenders offer an effective fender system providing a soft and stable berthing condition to ships. Evergreen air bags are widely used for ship launching, landing, heavy transport and air lifting. Due to the special use, structures of Evergreen air bags are optimized for safety and built for heavy duty use. The surface layers are enhanced for anti-abrasion and are pierce resistant. Even if they are somewhat wounded, Evergreen air bags can still work safely until repaired. The length of air bags are usually more than 10 meters and two cone-shaped ends make them look like huge sausages. Also, Evergreen air bags never use tires and shackles.

What are the advantageous to using this system over traditional ship launching techniques?

An air bag ship launching system does not need the traditional fabricated slipway so it saves time, investment, land, etc. Air bags need no extra maintenance and after use they can be cleaned and folded in the corner to wait for another mission. It is easy to find that air bags’ elasticity can give more protection to the launched ship. A remarkable character of air bags is that the working height can be changed to redirect the ship or object being launched by adjusting the inner air pressure. For this character it is peerless compared to traditional ship launching techniques.

So what are the other uses for this system?

Evergreen air bags are not only used for ships, floating docks and caisson launching but they are also cutting edge for ship landing, heavy transport, marine salvage, etc. It is a versatile tool for many marine applications.

What was the most challenging mission your system has assisted with?

The most challenging mission we ever participated in was the ancient ship named “Nanhai No.1” salvage project. The project was called the most complicated and expensive salvage project in China’s history. (photos of salvage project below)

It had been revised 6 times and been demonstrated 4 times during the preparing 4 years.  In June 2006, the top 22 experts were collected to demonstrate the latest project which finally got approved after two days of discussion.  It was finally decided to the best idea was to build a large caisson to contain the ship, then lift the caisson out of the water and onto land by air bags.

The Nanhai No.1 weighed 2,800 tons under water and when brought out of water, it weighed some 4,800 tons. The caisson was brought out of the water and placed on a submerged barge then carried to a temporary port. All we needed to do with air bags was land the caisson from the barge and move it to its final residence, a specially built museum named “crystal palace”. The tides and dropping off weights, along with the caisson moved to land, made the barge’s working height and direction change every time. We had to adjust the inner pressure of air bags placed under the caisson to redirect it to close the port or change the height of caisson bottom to reach a better condition for landing. On 12/25/2007 The first attempt to land the caisson was canceled because of a violent 4 meter wave when the caisson was near the port. During the next day’s floodtime, it took more than 3 hours to land the caisson on the temporary port successfully with 16 huge air bags. The remaining 365 meters from the temporary port to museum was comparatively easier for the air bags to carry the caisson. On 12/28/2007, we completed our goal when the caisson arrived at its new home, the “crystal palace”.

Any disadvantageous to using “Air Bags”?

Air bags ship launching technology can not be used for side-launch of big ships, so it is somewhat limited for ship launching. And it needs more calculation for the launching/landing process.

Is your company working on any new ideas for the future?

Yes. As was mentioned before, air bag ship launching technology can not currently be used for ship side-launch. We are working hard on the improvement of air bags and a design made for ship side-launch. We have two goals to achieve in the near future: one is to enable ship side-launch with air bags and the other is to launch DWT 100,000 ships using air bags.

How can we learn more about the product?

Our website, qingdaoyongtai.com, is a good place to start. We have plenty of marine air bag ship launching/salvage cases presented there that are of help.

Marine Air Bag – Ship Launching Photos

Video Of The Airbag-Assisted Ship Launch

Click here to view the embedded video.

A case in point: gCaptain was on hand a few years ago to test a new system for personnel transfers aboard an oil rig. The FROG, a product by Reflex Marine, was a radically new design for lifting people aboard rigs via crane. The new idea was simple, have the men sit down and strap in while being lifted from crew-boats onto oil rigs.  It was an idea that made sense to many safety-focused managers in Houston who were nervous about letting personnel ride transfer baskets standing up.  The tests proved problematic.  Those of us who participated in the test gave the unit a big thumbs down and we continued using our favorite product, the Billy Pugh, for all boat transfers.

The FROG failed to win our vote of confidence (In full disclosure the manufacturer claims an impressive  track record), so gCaptain did not write about the product, but we also failed to share our endorsement of Billy Pugh because… well… it “just worked”.

In an interview with Billy Pugh CEO Paul Liberato, John Konrad found out what makes Billy Pugh the industry standard and how such a durable and well constructed product is designed and improved.

JK: I’ve heard many managers, primarily office types, say the Billy Pugh is not safe. But most guys on the rigs disagree. Why the discord?

PL: I believe that the answer is that it just “looks dangerous”. The guys offshore know different but hanging on to a personnel transfer device and using a crane to move from the boat to the offshore structure just “seems” like it shouldn’t be safe. Many of the “office types” you describe haven’t spent as much time on a rig or boat and if they have may have worked in an area that does few crane transfers. Another reason is that in normal man-riding situations, we are taught to tie off, snap in or buckle up. We are used to doors and windows around us, not riding on some kind of unusual looking rope device. The irony is that statistically, you are MUCH more likely to die in a helicopter transfer than a personnel net transfer. Most management personnel against crane transfers just choose not to pay attention to this fact. They believe that helicopters just have to be a safer method. In a “head-to-head apples-to-apples comparison” in an area that uses both methods regularly (like the Gulf of Mexico) this fact becomes very obvious. There have been dozens of fatalities in helicopter transfers in the last several years. There have been no fatalities on crane transfers in the Gulf over this same time period. A big push from our side of the industry has been to “professionalize” the crane transfer part of the equation. This would include dedicated clear deck landing area, a review of best equipment and better and more extensive training for anyone associated with the transfer of personnel via crane. You would never hover a helicopter over a stack of pipe (or whatever was blocking the deck) and have personnel jump off onto it but until recently this was pretty standard crane transfer procedure. We in the crane transfer industry have done a pretty good job of changing this paradigm. In recent years by adding this higher level of professionalism to the crane transfer equation, we are bringing this activity to an even higher level of safety for offshore personnel.

JK: The biggest critics of the Billy Pugh tend to be from European countries and during the Deepwater Horizon incident North Sea advocates were very critical of Transocean for not installing certain safety devices on their equipment, despite the fact these devices would not have worked in this particular case. Is there a difference between the European and American view of safety?

PL: The general U.S. offshore market view of personnel transfer via crane is that it is a safe method that includes risks that can be minimized by the proper equipment, training and procedures. Interestingly though, probably the two largest crane transfer projects in recent history were BP’s Thunderhorse and Shell’s Perdido. Obviously, these are both European companies but in both cases they chose our X-904 personnel transfer device to do massive numbers of offshore personnel transfers.  BP had over 281,000 and Shell over 47,000 transfers during the height of operations. They were extremely successful and worked well in a variety of weather and sea states. In both cases there were no incidents.

JK: The critics say the Billy Pugh needs to be reinvented but the few new ideas gCaptain has tested, most notably the FROG, had significant safety problems.  What will the Billy Pugh look like in 5 years? Will it be drastically different or incorporate smaller design improvements?

PL: Our most recent model, the X-904 really is the best of both worlds in terms of personnel transfer design. The devices you mention provide additional features that were not available on our regular personnel baskets such as outer protection, overhead protection and fallrestraint. The problem that we found in our research was that personnel did not like sitting or being quite so restrained. The X-904 provides the additionalsafety features asked for by oil contractor and operator management without sacrificing the benefits of traditional personnel net transfer that the offshore workers like; such as being able to stand and egress the device quickly and safely, basket collapsing for storage, and less restraint for egress.  Offshore crane transfers are a dynamic procedure and passengers need to stand using legs with bent knees, just as you would if you were riding a power boat in rough seas.  Billy Pugh used to tell me when I first started with the company “don’t ever let them losetheir sea legs…keep um standing up”.

JK: Apart from offshore rigs, the need to transfer personnel via crew boats is increasing within the commercial shipping industry.  Is commercial shipping a growing market for Billy Pugh?  How about the military?

PL: We have definitely noticed an upswing in the commercial ship side of our business-tankers and lightering vessels especially.  They have some unique challenges due to the dynamics of ship to ship transfer such as limited deck space, smaller cranes and the pitch and roll of two vessels next to each other. At the moment this industry is working on new guidelines, procedures and inspection programs for cranes and transfer devices alike to bring consistency and a higher level of safety to the transfer equation.

We do sell the military a helicopter rescue basket as well as transfer devices for some government ships.  As of yet, we have not seen much in the way of the military market developing for crane assisted personnel transfer devices.

JK: I’ve witnessed the Billy Pugh take high levels of abuse and, in the hands of a skilled crane operator, complete transfers in fairly bad conditions. What is the secret to building a product with such durability?

PL: One of the many benefits of being in our business for over 50 years is that we understand the market that we serve. We make equipment almost exclusively for the offshore oil and gas industry. We understand the roughneck, the driller, the rigger and the derrickman as well as the culture of the offshore industry. These folks are tough and they are tough on equipment. When we build and design, we think more “tractor than sports car”. Our equipment is going to be treated rough and be exposed to rough seas, salt and sunlight…all of which are tough on gear. We understand this before we ever send anything offshore and build it with those factors in mind.

JK: How has your company been able to so effectively penetrate the global market?

PL: I think one of our biggest assets is our name. It is synonymous with offshore transfer devices and the offshore oil and gas industry in general. When I took over the company in 1989, one of the first things I thought to do was to change the name of the company. To put it mildly, BILLY PUGH was not the most glamorous or catchy marketing name that I could think of. After a very short amount of time though, it became very apparent that the name was extremely important and was one of our best assets. The fact that the offshore community may work all over the world but in real terms is a fairly small close knit group- really helps as well. Companies and rig hands are comfortable with our name and our equipment and this has helped us greatly to develop our overseas business and things have gone so globally. When something works in the Gulf of Mexico, it ought to work in Vietnam as well.

JK: What’s the next big idea for your company?

PL: Our addition of the X-904 wasa long process that took years to fully develop. It was a direct result of industry personnel telling us what they wanted and needed in a transfer device.We have always operated in this manner which is to say, we listen well. We don’t necessarily think we are the smartest or most creative/flashy folks here at Billy Pugh Co. but we do believe that we do the best job of listening to what the experts tell us. In my opinion, the experts are crane operators, HSE managers, rig managers and operations folks. They know what they need and we have found that if you build good relationships and listen to the people who know the world of offshore oil, then good things happen. Almost all our new products and ideas for new equipment have come from the industry asking us to solve aproblem for them. Sometimes it might be a specific accident or trend that a new product might help to reduce or eliminate. We really depend on the operators and contractors to guide us in what they need, we don’t much believe in “telling”them what they need. I’m sure that the next big idea will come as a result of this same process.

DeLorme, a manufacturer of handheld GPS system, and Iridium, the only satellite phone provider with rock-solid pole-to-pole coverage, have teamed up to announce a new product they call inReach. The system is simple, it’s a small battery powered modem that connects your phone to Iridium satellites via bluetooth. Our friends at Panbo tell us:

As in a $250 standalone global SOS and tracking device that can also do two way messaging when connected via Bluetooth to an apps phone or tablet, or to DeLorme’s own Earthmate PN-60w.  As in the existing DeLorme/Spot system, except with longer messages, faster response, greater range, and probably more reliability. The main source of info so far — and a rather neat way to preview a product — seems to be a DeLorme inReach blog entry written by one of the designers, who is also answering questions from commenters. Details I noticed was that the communicator itself is less than five inches tall, antenna included, and runs on two AA batteries. The tracking interval can customized, and the message includes SOG, COG, and altitude. And that slider and SOS button means it will be hard to accidentally call out the calvary, apparently a standard for SENDs (satellite emergency notification devices) established by the ProTECTS Alliance I wrote about in December. Continue Reading…

So, in addition to text messaging, the inReach unit serves as a backup (not replacement!) for your ship’s EPIRB and a way for your friends, but only if you invite them, to track your location at sea.

Ranging in price from one to several hundred dollars for a quality unit, these guns do one simple job, and they do it effectively… they tell the temperature of objects from a distance. The best ones come not only with a heat detector, but also with a laser mount which makes aiming the unit simple and effective.

This is perfect for use in boundary cooling operations aboard ship.

Just think, what are your biggest enemies during marine firefighting operations… smoke, heat and water.  Too much heat and the fire will spread but put too much water on surrounding bulkheads and you run into stability problems.

This is why a temperature gun should be in your emergency gear kit and handed out to each boundary cooling team with directions to only cool the bulkheads surrounding the fire in short bursts and only when they have heated up beyond normal levels.

The temperature gun has other uses too. Entry teams no longer have to feel each door risking burns on the back of their hands and ventilation ducts can be shot with the laser to check for the movement of smoke and heat through the HVAC system.

The greatest feature of Temperature Laser Guns is their price.  For less than a $1000 you can buy multiple units ready to hand out to first responders.  The best units, like the Fluke-68IS, are more expensive but the price translates to key features including intrinsically safe, water resistant housings, more rugged design, and temperature sensors ranging from -40 °F to 1400 °F.  In contrast, Amazon sells a no brand model for $20 which is great for using around the house (I own one myself!), but it’s max temperature range of 750 °F and shoddy construction would make it useless aboard ship… well, at least useless beyond making sure the old man’s coffee pot is still hot;)

With the crowded nature of the GMDSS / Emergency Signaling market, does the maritime world really need another manufacturer? I’ll leave that question for you to fight over in the comments but, regardless of need, a new player has emerged; a UK based company called Ocean Signal. Take a look at the following video for a sneak preview of their products:

Click here to view the embedded video.