Future of ships

Shipping seen as the softest of hacker targets -

You better believe it.

What is being done about it?

Nowhere near enough.

Will it influence the future smart ships and autonomous ships?

Undoubtedly.

Earl

Looks like the Uber situation was a straightforward case of official corruption, few if any technical lessons to be learned:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/28/uber-arizona-secret-self-driving-program-governor-doug-ducey?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USAÂą+Collections+2017&utm_term=269307&subid=20074034&CMP=GT_US_collection

Earl

Its obvious you cant let the existing IMO regime regulate autonomous ships, so who then?
Pay an IT organisation to overview all IMO things related to PC’s?
Or we have an age limit on the IMO members so they know what a PC and IT is?

1 Like

Here is the mooring and charging arrangement for the electric ferry Amper that have now been in service for a couple of years:

And the charging system from a competitor:


This hasn’t been put into use yet, as far as I know

Keeping the Brits away should be the number one priority.

And don’t forget the first ferry charging via induction:

Wireless charging

IMO is too easily “steered” by industry corporate interest to be able to govern the shipping industry (incl. autonomous ships??):

1 Like

I think the lack of consensus re pollution regs and other things have brought this to the fore
not to mention the ecids fiasco which says its also not competent to make the rules.

Wilhelmsen jump on the bandwagon to offer full packet, from design and development, control system, logistic support and operational management:


They join forces with Kongsberg who are already heavily involved in the business.

Yep Kongsberg already had an autonomous vessel a few years ago.


unique technology, never happened before or since.
( where was the independent joystick in all this has never been disclosed)

sorry couldnt resist it

Some time in '89 I intercepted a fairly excited telex (SITOR) on HF from a drill rig that was doing circles around the drill string. They were on their second 8" boot floppy on the spare computer and things weren’t getting better.

They also mentioned as a side issue that the crew were unhappy that the washing machine kept breaking the welds that held it to the deck.

Yes sh*t happens, either from equipment failure or human error.

That is why I have always stressed that on a DP2 or 3 vessel, where the requirement is two persons on the bridge at all times, ONE must be able to take manual control. (I.e. an experienced boat handler, not any old DPO that just throw up his arm if anything goes wrong with the DP system)

sure and almost killing the diver would not have happened if the ibjs was working but no report ever talks about it for what we all suspect can only be for 1 of 2 reasons:

  1. they were on DP knowing the ibjs was not working , that takes the vessel out of any DP class.
  2. the independent backup joystick wasnt so it went down with the dp consoles, hence the KM system not class compliant.

When the vessel is all azi’s its critical you have a joystick.

Even a vessel with Azimuth thrusters or pods have individual controls that can be manipulated individually. Not easy to stay on location, but doable.

As Owner’s Rep. during sea trials of a new DP-2 DSV with shafts driven Azimuth thrusters and no aft tunnel thruster.
I made a remark that if one engine should be lost the one remaining thruster would have to control too many things. I was told that was no problem, but when I suggested testing that, I was vetoed by the attending Class Surveyor and DP expert. (Not required. Not on the test program)

Some months later a piston rod blew out the side of one engine while they had divers in the bell.
It was in good weather so they managed to get the bell on deck and the divers in decompression, before the vessel wandered too far off location.

A sadly fatal example of the kind of edge case that makes sensor processing so difficult:

https://jalopnik.com/video-appears-to-show-tesla-autopilot-veering-toward-di-1825016336

The so-called “autopilot” (which isn’t) appears to have picked up the stronger white line marking the right boundary of the left exit and veered left onto the shoulder and into an unrepaired and lethal crash barrier.

The Tesla PR spin is pretty disingenuous. Now they say that not only are you expected to take over when the YOYO light goes on, you’re expected to monitor the actions of the “autopilot” at the same level you would if you were actually driving the car. So then what does the “autopilot” save you?

Earl

Edit: Account of a similar accident. This time the crash barrier was intact and worked:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/theres-growing-evidence-teslas-autopilot-handles-lane-dividers-poorly/

1 Like

re the AZI’s, the bibby topaz proved what we all know, a human can do 2 azi’s and thats it.
It would make a good game show to let one or more punters control a vessel that was all azi

Lots of boats built with 2 stern azi and nothing else for PSV, hard to believe a DSV was configured like that?
How can you do a sea trial on a dp2 vessel without shutting one thruster down to see if it will remain on DP ( and position subject to the environment), thats what DP2 means?
Was that class or client acceptance?

Isn’t the point with a independent joystick with auto heading that you are not going to tax yourself holding heading at the same time as you focus on surge and sway?

I’m not sure if I understood the bibby topaz incident completely, but the fault was in the DP system and not thruster control? And if the operator had changed over to the IJS the accident would have been avoided?

yes…

BUT for some secret reason the IJS was not used.
Either bibby or KM covering their arse
KM was in such a panic they removed the whole DP system off the vessel
A software patch doesnt fix the design issue that is unique to KM

Yes it would be difficult to hold exact position and heading, but possible to keep reasonably close.
Close enough to get the bell off bottom and/or away from obstructions.

The vessel in question were a new build on acceptance trial, incl. DP test and FMEA proving trial in accordance with a prepared and approved procedure.

I represented absentee Owner while others were representing the BB Charterer that would be operating the vessel. My job was to ensure that procedure was followed, report any discrepancies and confirm to the financing bank on completion.

I did point out this and a few other design flaws, but the vessel was built per specs and tested per procedure, so delivery took place anyhow.

PS> As far as I know only one major IACS member approve that arrangement for DP-2 vessels.

How did you do an fmea test without emstop of each thruster or main engine?

2 stern azi meets DP2 so all class approve it, hence there are lots out there.
2 Voith Schneider do as well, an ex singapore dive company had one