http://gcaptain.com/spotd-rolls-royce-unified-bridge-aboard-stril-luna/
From the article on the gCaptain main page. In addition:
Video was posted 2 years ago. Someone actually listened to the guys driving the boat. If I were to design a bridge layout, I don’t think it’d be much different than the Rolls Royce design. It’s amazing how many consoles out there that make absolutely no sense. Love that Stril Luna though. Damn…
[QUOTE=Quimby;191967]http://gcaptain.com/spotd-rolls-royce-unified-bridge-aboard-stril-luna/
Video was posted 2 years ago. [B][I]Someone actually listened to the guys driving the boat.[/I][/B] If I were to design a bridge layout, I don’t think it’d be much different than the Rolls Royce design. It’s amazing how many consoles out there that make absolutely no sense. Love that Stril Luna though. Damn…[/QUOTE]
Yes that is the reason why Norwegian designers have created vessels that become the “gold standard” for Offshore Support Vessels (OSV), starting with the UT 704 design in the early 1970’s.
Six of the main OSV designers are situated within a few Km. from Aalesund: Rolls-Royce Marine, Ulstein Solutions, Vard Design, Skipsteknisk, Marine Teknikk and Havyard Design.
Many Owners of OSVs are also situated here: Farstad, Havila, Rem Offshore, Olympic, Island Offshore and Sanco, with more than 150 large modern vessels working worldwide between them.
The majority of Masters, Officers and Engineers manning these vessels also come from the local area.
They are not shy to tell the designers where they go wrong and how to improve in the future. Maybe more surprising to you; the designers are actually listening to them.
How is this possible? Because there is no feeling of “class difference” between them, or any large wage gap. (If anything, the seafarers are the higher earners) They may have gone to the same schools as children, played in the same football club and live in the same standard of housing in the same neighbourhood.
What is now Rolls-Royce Marine AS was originally Ulstein Trading, until 1999. (UT is still used by RRM to designate their vessel designs)
But they retained the Shipyard in Ulsteinvik and is now back as a major player in the design and equipment segment, competing with RRM in the development of new technology and designs, under the name Ulstein Design & Solutions AS: https://ulstein.com/company/ulstein-design-solutions-as
They have developed their own “Ulstein Bridge Vision”, which sports “heads up display” as part of their design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A1zgxTlsck
Is this the future on OSVs? What say you OSV people here?
For anybody that is interested, here is the history of Ulstein Group and the legendary leader for many years, Idar Ulstein: https://ulstein.com/people/idar-ulstein
[QUOTE=ombugge;191968]How is this possible? Because there is no feeling of “class difference” between them, or any large wage gap. (If anything, the seafarers are the higher earners) They may have gone to the same schools as children, played in the same football club and live in the same standard of housing in the same neighbourhood.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations! You have succinctly articulated why your constant attempts at comparing American and Norwegian ways of doing things is futile.
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;191972]Congratulations! You have succinctly articulated why your constant attempts at comparing American and Norwegian ways of doing things is futile.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know. How can you compare somebody who keep on copying the same old drawings for years, without ever attempting to find out if there may be new and better ways to do things, with innovative thinking and design based on experience?
If it wasn’t for the Norwegians introducing new designs and new equipment, would the “bayou boys” ever have invested in Karm forks on their boats? No, they would still expect you to use Pelican Hooks and Devil’s Claws, never mind the danger in doing so.
An advantage the airline industry has over the maritime industry is standardized cockpits. All 747s have the same cockpit. A320s have a different cockpit, but the same between A320s. (Maybe I’m talking about something I don’t know about. Set me straight, if I am). It’s a simple, obvious thing, but think of how much safer that standardization makes flying than sailing. If you fly a 747, you can fly any 747. Part of that is the fact that the plane is standardized of course, but part of that is the fact that the cockpit is always standardized. No learning curve on controls and electronics.
If you want to learn to fly a 747 you can go to a flight simulator anywhere in the world (or at home)and learn to fly any 747. More importantly, if you are an experienced pilot and need to brush up on emergency maneuvers for any number of unlikely contingencies you just jump back in the simulator for the particular airplane you fly. All the controls and electronics are exactly where they would be on your plane. Your simulated plane would handle exactly as it would in real life. (Watch the movie “Sully”).The wonders of standardization.
Whereas most boats are different from each other. Even sister ships can have different bridges. So ship simulators are generic, and the equipment you find in one is almost guaranteed to be different than those on the boat you work on. If the trainee screws up he or she always has the excuse “Well, on my boat I would have done better, because this or that would be in a different place…, etc.” The simulator techs can change the ship handling parameters (sometimes, if you pay them a lot) but they can’t change the physical bridge layout. Plus, there is plenty of wasted time at the simulator while the trainee “learns the bridge”, as all of us do our first few days on a new boat.
Wouldn’t it be safer if the maritime world standardized on, say, four different bridge configurations for all vessels, so that any crew anywhere could train on X number of different bridge configurations, and not have a learning curve every time they changed boats? Operators of ship simulators would have X different simulator bays. After the proper ship handling characteristics were dialed in, trainees could endlessly practice maneuvers dealing with unlikely contingencies, in the bridge they were used to. There would be computer games allowing you to do the same thing anyplace you wanted.
If we are obsessed with safety, isn’t this the way to go? We standardize survival craft and GMDSS consoles. We all use the same system of navigation lights. On deep-sea ships Iron Mike is always the same (or at least it was once. Long time since I sailed deep sea). Why don’t we follow the idea to the ultimate conclusion, and standardize the most important area of the ship when it comes to safety, the bridge? (I’m not taking about the Rolls Royce design, but in general).
[QUOTE=ombugge;191968]Yes that is the reason why Norwegian designers have created vessels that become the “gold standard” for Offshore Support Vessels (OSV), starting with the UT 704 design in the early 1970’s.
Six of the main OSV designers are situated within a few Km. from Aalesund: Rolls-Royce Marine, Ulstein Solutions, Vard Design, Skipsteknisk, Marine Teknikk and Havyard Design.
[/QUOTE]
You forgot Odim.
Ålesund is a charming town. It is so picturesque and unique. I was waiting for a midnight arrival of the ferry there, and that long long summer twightlight was really magical. Then the drunken football hoodlums came out. I don’t think I’ve ever felt so intimidated by a mob of boys (who didn’t actually take note of me at all). If it wasn’t for football, Vikings might still be a problem, I think. Serious business. Beautiful game, my butt.
[QUOTE=Emrobu;191975]You forgot Odim.
Ålesund is a charming town. It is so picturesque and unique. I was waiting for a midnight arrival of the ferry there, and that long long summer twightlight was really magical. Then the drunken football hoodlums came out. I don’t think I’ve ever felt so intimidated by a mob of boys (who didn’t actually take note of me at all). If it wasn’t for football, Vikings might still be a problem, I think. Serious business. Beautiful game, my butt.[/QUOTE]
Odim is an equipment supplier specializing in deck equipment for Seismic vessels and (to a degree) Anchor handling equipment. BTW, they are now part of RRM.
Glad you liked your visit here. You may not like it much in the winter though. (No, not too cold, but wet and windy)
PS> You must have visited when the local football club (AaFK) won a match. Lucky you.
[QUOTE=freighterman;191974]An advantage the airline industry has over the maritime industry is standardized cockpits. All 747s have the same cockpit. A320s have a different cockpit, but the same between A320s. (Maybe I’m talking about something I don’t know about. Set me straight, if I am). It’s a simple, obvious thing, but think of how much safer that standardization makes flying than sailing. If you fly a 747, you can fly any 747. Part of that is the fact that the plane is standardized of course, but part of that is the fact that the cockpit is always standardized. No learning curve on controls and electronics.
If you want to learn to fly a 747 you can go to a flight simulator anywhere in the world (or at home)and learn to fly any 747. More importantly, if you are an experienced pilot and need to brush up on emergency maneuvers for any number of unlikely contingencies you just jump back in the simulator for the particular airplane you fly. All the controls and electronics are exactly where they would be on your plane. Your simulated plane would handle exactly as it would in real life. (Watch the movie “Sully”).The wonders of standardization.
Whereas most boats are different from each other. Even sister ships can have different bridges. So ship simulators are generic, and the equipment you find in one is almost guaranteed to be different than those on the boat you work on. If the trainee screws up he or she always has the excuse “Well, on my boat I would have done better, because this or that would be in a different place…, etc.” The simulator techs can change the ship handling parameters (sometimes, if you pay them a lot) but they can’t change the physical bridge layout. Plus, there is plenty of wasted time at the simulator while the trainee “learns the bridge”, as all of us do our first few days on a new boat.
Wouldn’t it be safer if the maritime world standardized on, say, four different bridge configurations for all vessels, so that any crew anywhere could train on X number of different bridge configurations, and not have a learning curve every time they changed boats? Operators of ship simulators would have X different simulator bays. After the proper ship handling characteristics were dialed in, trainees could endlessly practice maneuvers dealing with unlikely contingencies, in the bridge they were used to. There would be computer games allowing you to do the same thing anyplace you wanted.
If we are obsessed with safety, isn’t this the way to go? We standardize survival craft and GMDSS consoles. We all use the same system of navigation lights. On deep-sea ships Iron Mike is always the same (or at least it was once. Long time since I sailed deep sea). Why don’t we follow the idea to the ultimate conclusion, and standardize the most important area of the ship when it comes to safety, the bridge? (I’m not taking about the Rolls Royce design, but in general).[/QUOTE]
Your concept makes sense but implementation might be not be so easy to accomplish. There are only a handful of companies producing airliners and standardized cockpits are the result of a centralized assembly line manufacturing process. Ships are generally built on a one-off basis to suit a client’s individual needs with a wider field of choices in terms of systems and equipment.
In order to standardize ships’ bridges, an international regulatory body, would have to create a one-size-fits-all design and eventually maybe four-sizes-fits-all designs as you suggest, and have them approved by diverse groups of interested parties. That body would also have to enforce the agreed upon results.
The IMO would be the logical vehicle to accomplish this feat after an expansion of its charter but who is going to lead the parade? Do you extend the concept to engine rooms?
In my opinion, by the time it would take to accomplish this, the concept will have dovetailed into the design of autonomous vessels, out of necessity.
(I can hear Ombugge cackling with glee in the background.)
PS I think even if vessels remain fully manned, the steering console will look like the Rolls Royce one and AB’s will not be allowed on the bridge except to deliver a message.
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;191979]Your concept makes sense but implementation might be not be so easy to accomplish. There are only a handful of companies producing airliners and standardized cockpits are the result of a centralized assembly line manufacturing process. Ships are generally built on a one-off basis to suit a client’s individual needs with a wider field of choices in terms of systems and equipment.
In order to standardize ships’ bridges, an international regulatory body, would have to create a one-size-fits-all design and eventually maybe four-sizes-fits-all designs as you suggest, and have them approved by diverse groups of interested parties. That body would also have to enforce the agreed upon results.
The IMO would be the logical vehicle to accomplish this feat after an expansion of its charter but who is going to lead the parade? Do you extend the concept to engine rooms?
In my opinion, by the time it would take to accomplish this, the concept will have dovetailed into the design of autonomous vessels out of necessity.
(I can hear Ombugge cackling with glee in the background.)[/QUOTE]
Better to build a more flexible simulator than an more standardized ship, no?
ombugge
would you say STX in Norway is Norwegian as I was a 18month old shocker the other day re design, ( nicely made though)
I would guess that ABS would not have classed it DP due to the stupid aft bridge design
not to mention 4 main engines and an EM gen only, so 2.5mw gen set running when alongside WTF?
[QUOTE=ombugge;191973]Yes I know. How can you compare somebody who keep on copying the same old drawings for years, without ever attempting to find out if there may be new and better ways to do things, with innovative thinking and design based on experience?
If it wasn’t for the Norwegians introducing new designs and new equipment, would the “bayou boys” ever have invested in Karm forks on their boats? No, they would still expect you to use Pelican Hooks and Devil’s Claws, never mind the danger in doing so.[/QUOTE]
If it wasn’t for the Norwegians, it would be someone else. I would not put in credit in saying this and substitute your quote:
"If it wasn’t for the Americans introducing new designs and new equipment, would the “Norbagge” ever have invested in Airplanes? No, they would still expect you to use Viking Ships, never mind the danger in doing so. You can substitute the Germans for automobiles if preferred, but that one is more debatable.
Not many vessels in the Gulf of Mexico had or have Karm Forks. Shark Jaws were the preferred option. Innovation is generally a collaboration from various markets and customer needs.
[QUOTE=anchorman;192026]If it wasn’t for the Norwegians, it would be someone else. I would not put in credit in saying this and substitute your quote:
"If it wasn’t for the Americans introducing new designs and new equipment, would the “Norbagge” ever have invested in Airplanes? No, they would still expect you to use Viking Ships, never mind the danger in doing so. You can substitute the Germans for automobiles if preferred, but that one is more debatable.
Not many vessels in the Gulf of Mexico had or have Karm Forks. Shark Jaws were the preferred option. Innovation is generally a collaboration from various markets and customer needs.[/QUOTE]
If by Shark Jaws you mean these, they are also a Norwegian invention: http://www.triplex.no/site/view/shark_jaws
Maybe you mean this knock-off made in China?: http://www.smithberger.com/sharkjaw.htm
Actually “Shark Jaw” was a product name for the first such mechanical stopper device introduced to the North Sea market.
A variety of it is still being made by Roll-Royce Marne, who took over Ulstein trading: www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls.../sharkjaws-towingpins-factsheet.pdf
Shark Jaws was first fitted on the UT 704 vessels designed and built by Ulstein in the mid-1970s:
http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/UT_704_Anchor-Handling_Tug/Supply_Vessel
It took many years before any American boats got such “unnecessary and expensive equipment” fitted.
“What is wrong with Pelican hooks anyhow?? That is what we have always used. We don’t need no foreign newfangled sh*t”
[QUOTE=ombugge;192032]If by Shark Jaws you mean these, they are also a Norwegian invention: http://www.triplex.no/site/view/shark_jaws
Maybe you mean this knock-off made in China?: http://www.smithberger.com/sharkjaw.htm
Actually “Shark Jaw” was a product name for the first such mechanical stopper device introduced to the North Sea market.
A variety of it is still being made by Roll-Royce Marne, who took over Ulstein trading: http://gcaptain.com/forum/dynamic-positioning/dynamic-positioning/www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls.../sharkjaws-towingpins-factsheet.pdf
Shark Jaws was first fitted on the UT 704 vessels designed and built by Ulstein in the mid-1970s:
http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/UT_704_Anchor-Handling_Tug/Supply_Vessel
It took many years before any American boats got such “unnecessary and expensive equipment” fitted.
“What is wrong with Pelican hooks anyhow?? That is what we have always used. We don’t need no foreign newfangled sh*t”[/QUOTE]
Well, a congratulations must be in order for that effort, but I already knew that - so no cookie. Just pointing out the difference, not the origin.
And, then of course the obvious Norwegian “if it wasn’t for us” line that pops up from time to time, for which I have no good reason why this happens. It just does.
All of our arguments are invalid because Leif Erickson invented America and built the very first North American shipyard. They built UT-01 long ships with state of the art sails and azimuthing oars.
[QUOTE=anchorman;192035]Well, a congratulations must be in order for that effort, but I already knew that - so no cookie. Just pointing out the difference, not the origin.
And, then of course the obvious Norwegian “if it wasn’t for us” line that pops up from time to time, for which I have no good reason why this happens. It just does.[/QUOTE]
Oh you mean the line; " If it wasn’t because of Norwegian effort, the world would have come to a complete stop"?
That applies only to establishing world peace, not to really important issues, like Maritime know-how.
It is a fact that when oil was found in the Norwegian Sector of the North Sea, it was all by Americans using American technology and equipment. The rigs and boats used at that time were all built in America, for operation in the Gulf of Mexico and totally unsuited for North Sea conditions.
Pretty quickly Trawlers were converted to Seismic vessels and OSVs, built on experience from fishing in the area, replaced the mud boats from Morgan City, La.
Multi-hull ODECO designed rigs were soon replaced by more suitable twin-hull Aker H4s, which became the standard semi-submersible design world wide, incl. for ODECO designed and US rigs built after abt. 1975.
For a few years the rigs were still manned by Americans in senior drilling positions, but not for long.
By 1980 Norwegian designed and produced Drilling equipment came on the market, incl. Top Drive, Iron Roughnecks, Drew-works, pipe handling equipment etc. from Maritime Hydraulic, now TTS: http://www.ttsgroup.com/Former-Brand-Names/Maritime-Hydraulics/
and Hydralift, now NOV: http://www.norwaypost.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13629
Both original companies were started by the same man in turn and are situated in Kristiansand, Norway.
Today nearly all new offshore rigs are equipped with Drilling equipment, Cyber chairs and control systems, as well as pipe handling equipment and Cranes designed in Norway. If in doubt, have a look around the rigs built after 2000 now working in the GoM. (Both Drillships, Semis and J/Ups)
Back to the aforementioned Seismic vessels: Nearly all purpose built Seismic vessels now in operation world wide are built and/or designed in Norway. Source and Streamer winches and other handling equipment is also from Norway. (Mostly by ODIM; now RRM) Many of the Seismic companies are Norwegian, or of Norwegian origin.
We have some Seismic guys on the forum who can confirm that.
Is that just bragging, or trying to rub it in??
No, of course not. It is just facts, even if it is hard to swallow.
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;192041]All of our arguments are invalid because Leif Erickson invented America and built the very first North American shipyard. They built UT-01 long ships with state of the art sails and azimuthing oars.[/QUOTE]
Well yes, but they didn’t like the place so went back to a friendlier Greenland.
PS> Don’t know about azimuthing oars “??” Did you mean slaves, or did you miss a letter in that last famous word??
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;192041]They built UT-01 long ships with state of the art sails and azimuthing oars.[/QUOTE]
I heard they invented batteries so they could blast ABBA’s Greatest Hits on huge speakers while they sailed.
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;192046]I heard they invented batteries so they could blast ABBA’s Greatest Hits on huge speakers while they sailed.[/QUOTE]
Helvete, Lars! Dancy-dance forbudt in der tiny båt!
Why are all of the pipe flanges around the 6:47 mark wrapped in metal tape? For sealing any slight drips?
What a DB ombugge…