To respond to the subject of being hacked…that was premise of the movie [I]Hackers[/I] back in 1995, someone holding a tanker company hostage by hacking into to the ballast system of the tankers and threatening to roll them over. At the time I thought it was ridiculous. Most automation systems like Kongsberg are designed to be completely separate from the ships IT network, explicitly to prevent outside access and corruption. But on one ship I recently worked on an ETO had set up a remote monitoring screen so he could troubleshoot K-Chief from the comfort of his air-conditioned office, and inadvertently created a backdoor through the ships network that could be accessed from shore by a properly motivated individual. Turns out the premise is not so far fetched after all.
[QUOTE=shipengr;182289]To respond to the subject of being hacked…that was premise of the movie [I]Hackers[/I] back in 1995, someone holding a tanker company hostage by hacking into to the ballast system of the tankers and threatening to roll them over. At the time I thought it was ridiculous. Most automation systems like Kongsberg are designed to be completely separate from the ships IT network, explicitly to prevent outside access and corruption. But on one ship I recently worked on an ETO had set up a remote monitoring screen so he could troubleshoot K-Chief from the comfort of his air-conditioned office, and inadvertently created a backdoor through the ships network that could be accessed from shore by a properly motivated individual. Turns out the premise is not so far fetched after all.[/QUOTE]
Hollywood hospital pays $17,000 in bitcoin to hackers
I wonder how many bitcoins it would be for a cargo ship
[QUOTE=cajaya;182285]So, no answer on the security question yet. Have they even thought about it? As this becomes more popular or talked about or even starts…I can see it becoming a target or interest for hackers. I dont know how congested or uncongested the northern European coasts are but I mean in the right set of circumstances I can see it being a pretty bad situation. As in, rogue/hijacked automomous ship hits LNG carrier which blows up passenger ship.[/QUOTE]
You could google it and if you don’t get any hits then no one has thought of it.
In general increasing automation will bring new risks. It will also reduce other risks. The consensus seems to be automation will reduce risk overall.
Haven’t seen a mention of physical security either. How much effort would it take for a pirate/terrorist in any waters to simply hop on board and steal whatever. Stowaways. Or the worst, steal the ship an use it as a vehicle for a bigger plot… Don’t need to be Crash Override to use a skiff, Evinrude and grappling hook.
The first to go will be the deck department. Navigation will be computerized. They will downsize the watches until there is only one or two mates/ETs. Tying up and letting go can already be done with a gang that boards and departs with the pilot.
The engineers will be around much longer. There will be a few engineers that specialize in the maintenance of the electronics of the ship.
The steward department will be replaced by food service ashore like we already have on airplanes. Think TV dinners you heat up yourself. (Didn’t someone already try that?)
Eventually most everyone will be replaced by contractors who work in port or occasionally ride along for longer jobs.
[QUOTE=cajaya;182258]That still doesn’t answer the question about cyber terrorists. I mean I know the ships are designed to be unmanned but what if hackers took control of one of them remotely caused it to run into something such as an LNG carrier? Do northern Europeans think they are above this? I mean look what just happened in Brussels, BRUSSELS, of all places. I mean what did Brussels ever do to anybody? Yes, the U.S. military has drones, but they also have cyber security professionals working around the clock. Is Rolls Royce going to have that?[/QUOTE]
Brussels? Well, “soft target” comes to mind. . . and yeah, I would consider it likely that anyone operating “unmanned” vessels would likely have cyber security in place. . . I still think that placing one or two engineers would be the most likely scenario, though. . . “what can go wrong. . . .” and the like. . .
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=cajaya;182285]So, no answer on the security question yet. Have they even thought about it? As this becomes more popular or talked about or even starts…I can see it becoming a target or interest for hackers. I dont know how congested or uncongested the northern European coasts are but I mean in the right set of circumstances I can see it being a pretty bad situation. As in, rogue/hijacked automomous ship hits LNG carrier which blows up passenger ship.[/QUOTE]
I did answer it. . . .and don’t think that you are the only one to think of that. I would imagine that ANY company that would provide this kind of service would likely be looking at cyber security VERY seriously.
[QUOTE=elmateorino;182304]Haven’t seen a mention of physical security either. How much effort would it take for a pirate/terrorist in any waters to simply hop on board and steal whatever. Stowaways. Or the worst, steal the ship an use it as a vehicle for a bigger plot… Don’t need to be Crash Override to use a skiff, Evinrude and grappling hook.[/QUOTE]
Maybe the ship would be shut down remotely. Pirates would need the PIN to get things rolling again.
Plan is to introduce the idea on a run between ports within the same country, likely in Northern Europe, to avoid issues with international regs.
Speaking of security, the weak link for shipping everywhere is GPS. I’d think this would boost the argument for eLoran.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;182318]Speaking of security, the weak link for shipping everywhere is GPS. I’d think this would boost the argument for eLoran.[/QUOTE]
Soon we have 3 systems to rely on, navstar, glonass and galileo. If all 3 systems are down at the same time, we have bigger problems then navigation.
[QUOTE=cajaya;182270]I have noticed with some deckies, they seem to look at engineers like their other crewmen…like AB’s that get paid mostly for labor unless they are a watchstander. They seem not to always look at it like engineers are actually a combination of both labor workers and knowledge workers (which are two types of labor that are supposed to be managed differently) I have noticed that alot on limited tonnage vessels.[/QUOTE]
Well DUH. Engineers are just grease monkeys that never see the light of day and fuck off down below doing whatever it is that they do…and probably drunk too!
This industry is unique in using the term “engineer” with somebody that may earn the title soley by on-the-job-training. Most other places, an “engineer” implies at least 4 years of university training in the science of engineering (the definition of which is a completely different topic).
On old steam ships, a solid engineer needed to truly know some thermodynamics and other obscure stuff to fully understand the systems and be able to make decisions in the middle of the sea. These topics aren’t learned on the job, sorry.
Today, most ships can be kept running by button pushes. It was the same way with airplanes…there used to be a 3rd person in the cockpit (flight engineer) until the computers and modern reliable designs took over much of his job (to observe and managed the equipment).
But as long as everything is going well down below, the engineer(s) is obviously cruising along and drinking coffee with his feet on the desk. It’s such an easy job, that must be why it appears, anecdotally, that while getting a deck position is tougher right now, there seem to be many more engineering positions floating around.
[QUOTE=elmateorino;182304]Haven’t seen a mention of physical security either. How much effort would it take for a pirate/terrorist in any waters to simply hop on board and steal whatever. Stowaways. Or the worst, steal the ship an use it as a vehicle for a bigger plot… Don’t need to be Crash Override to use a skiff, Evinrude and grappling hook.[/QUOTE]
If any of that happen and someone try to tamper with anything all systems goes to to neutral.
You seams to forget that there is no wheelhouse and no manual engine controls to operate the ship. It is done from afar.
The danger, if any is hacking, as has been mentioned several times.
[QUOTE=Kraken;182319]Soon we have 3 systems to rely on, navstar, glonass and galileo. If all 3 systems are down at the same time, we have bigger problems then navigation.[/QUOTE]
No one said anything about the systems being “down”.
All satellite systems are equally vulnerable.
The problem is that the signal is so weak it is easy to spoof and make the ship think it’s somewhere it isn’t, and this make it go basically anywhere you want. eLoran is such a strong signal that this isn’t possible.
[QUOTE=Kraken;182319]Soon we have 3 systems to rely on, navstar, glonass and galileo. If all 3 systems are down at the same time, we have bigger problems then navigation.[/QUOTE]
Should have said GNSS. It’s a path thing. If you want to make your beer cooling system twice as robust buying a second refrigerator won’t double reliability because the likely failure path is the electrical power supply.
Don’t really know all that much about GNSS reliability, truth be told, seems fragile though.
[QUOTE=johnny.dollar;182322]Well DUH. Engineers are just grease monkeys that never see the light of day and fuck off down below doing whatever it is that they do…and probably drunk too!
This industry is unique in using the term “engineer” with somebody that may earn the title solely by on-the-job-training. Most other places, an “engineer” implies at least 4 years of university training in the science of engineering (the definition of which is a completely different topic).
On old steam ships, a solid engineer needed to truly know some thermodynamics and other obscure stuff to fully understand the systems and be able to make decisions in the middle of the sea. These topics aren’t learned on the job, sorry.
Today, most ships can be kept running by button pushes. It was the same way with airplanes…there used to be a 3rd person in the cockpit (flight engineer) until the computers and modern reliable designs took over much of his job (to observe and managed the equipment).
But as long as everything is going well down below, the engineer(s) is obviously cruising along and drinking coffee with his feet on the desk. It’s such an easy job, that must be why it appears, anecdotally, that while getting a deck position is tougher right now, there seem to be many more engineering positions floating around.[/QUOTE]
Yes you are right, it cannot be learned solely on the job, but if you ever work deep sea (maybe not so much on a supply boats but there are exceptions) there are quite a few hawsepipers out there who take this matter into their own hands. They go to the union training schools and take classes such as diesels, PLC’s and instrumentation, they take manufacturers’ courses, read the manuals on all the equipment, watch youtube videos and even take online courses and go through the material on courses that are published online by MIT (MIT’s open courseware). In fact, one of my family members did so much extra training/certification/courses that he now landed a land job that pays better than any degree’d deep sea engineer that I know of.
It’s already been stated on this forum that GLMA graduates make great engineers, yet they have business degrees, and I even sailed with a couple engineers with ME degrees from their respective academies that admitted they cheated the whole way through school. Furthermore, what good is an engineer that has memorized the periodic table, the atomic weight of plutonium, Kirchhoff’s law, Charles’s law, Stokes law and Rolle’s theorem but can’t identify the difference between a coupling and a union fitting and that doesn’t actually know how to do anything practical?
With that being said I have not met anyone out of AMO’s tech program yet but I expect they will probably be great engineers. The same was said of CMES graduates. There are good and bad on both sides of the fence, but from working with both types I can’t say that a degree(even an ME) is the be all and end all of who is a better engineer or not.
There are a few mature technologies that are or could be used for navigation in the absence of the various GPS systems.
Submarines have used inertial navigation successfully for many years. This relies on no external sources of information and is impossible to jam or spoof. (Not as exact as GPS.)
Spacecraft use star finders to figure out their orientation and to an extant their position. It would be trivial to incorporate a sky looking camera and gyro for accurate celestial navigation. (Weather dependent but otherwise immune to jamming or spoofing.)
Latitude by gyro is common and immune to external source disruptions. (No longitude, not that accurate.)
A computer could easily be programmed to use radar information to verify an expected position by checking against a radar ‘map’ and perhaps find an unknown position. (I guess it’s possible to jam or even spoof radar signals.)
If all four were used together a system could work very well (better then a human) without relying on external transmissions like satellites or terrestrial beacons.
RDF such as LORAN or beacons put in place by the technology provider is another although it would make spoofing possible. (Aircraft still use RDF beacons.)
If several of these were used together to check against each other a very accurate position could be maintained even in the event of multiple failures or intentional jamming or spoofing. It’s just that GPS is so cheap and accurate that it’s all most folks use. An automated navigation system (like humans) shouldn’t rely on just one source of information.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;182276]Yes, but the owners don’t CHOOSE to over man their vessels, the clients require, and pay extra for, the extra crew.[/QUOTE]
In GOM maybe, but not necessarily in the rest of the world.
If a so-called “Second Master” or others are added for a specific job and requested by the client then yes, but for normal operation no.
[QUOTE=DeckApe;182311]The first to go will be the deck department. Navigation will be computerized. They will downsize the watches until there is only one or two mates/ETs. Tying up and letting go can already be done with a gang that boards and departs with the pilot.
The engineers will be around much longer. There will be a few engineers that specialize in the maintenance of the electronics of the ship.
The steward department will be replaced by food service ashore like we already have on airplanes. Think TV dinners you heat up yourself. (Didn’t someone already try that?)
Eventually most everyone will be replaced by contractors who work in port or occasionally ride along for longer jobs.[/QUOTE]
Yes it has been tried, but it did not work out, because the Cook is the most important person on the boat.
If you have had a bad watch, how can you take it out on a microwave oven??
[QUOTE=ombugge;182346]In GOM maybe, but not necessarily in the rest of the world.
If a so-called “Second Master” or others are added for a specific job and requested by the client then yes, but for normal operation no.[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe any owner pays a cent more than they have to. If those foreign owners are so generous that they’ll waste money on extra crew then why don’t they pay more?
[QUOTE=cajaya;182340]It’s already been stated on this forum that GLMA graduates make great engineers, yet they have business degrees[/QUOTE]
You are remembering incorrectly. GLMA engineers get a Bachelor of Science degree in Maritime Technology.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;182359]You are remembering incorrectly. GLMA engineers get a Bachelor of Science degree in Maritime Technology.[/QUOTE]
Yes, perhaps that’s what its officially called. I sailed with a GLMA grad that described it as a “business degree”.
[QUOTE=cajaya;182376]Yes, perhaps that’s what its officially called. I sailed with a GLMA grad that described it as a “business degree”.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he was like many people that go to an academy and disgruntled at having to take any classes other than those directly related to the major. In this country a Bachelor degree isn’t a trade diploma, there are general education requirements.
Here is the engineering program at GLMA. It is probably the closest you can be to being a trade school diploma and still be an accredited BS program. (Is also obvious why it’s engineering TECHNOLOGY and not a real engineering degree, all the engineering science courses are effing electives.)
https://www.nmc.edu/maritime/programs-and-degrees/engineering-officer/program-requirements.html
Definitely NOT even remotely close to being a “business” degree.