Man overboard detection technology

[Ex techie]

Should DCL and other cruise lines be made to install this technology, or is it too higher risk for them to have it, it fail and not detect a MOB and then be sued?

 

This company seem to have a good system.

http://www.rzdmpa.com/index.php/man-overboard

 

Do the pros outweigh the cons?

Is the risk too high?

 

I think it should be mandatory. Any thoughts?

 

ex techie

[Host Mick]

Should DCL and other cruise lines be made to install this technology, or is it too higher risk for them to have it, it fail and not detect a MOB and then be sued?

 

This company seem to have a good system.

http://www.rzdmpa.com/index.php/man-overboard

 

Do the pros outweigh the cons?

Is the risk too high?

 

I think it should be mandatory. Any thoughts?

 

ex techie

 

" is it too higher risk for them to have it, it fail and not detect a MOB and then be sued?"

Anybody can sue for anything but being culpable for having a good-faith effort fail is absurd.

 

If a line wants to install it, that's fine but mandatory? Let's give it a few years on a voluntary basis to see if it works well. I have the feeling that the false alarms will kill it.

[Ex techie]

" is it too higher risk for them to have it, it fail and not detect a MOB and then be sued?"

Anybody can sue for anything but being culpable for having a good-faith effort fail is absurd.

 

If a line wants to install it, that's fine but mandatory? Let's give it a few years on a voluntary basis to see if it works well. I have the feeling that the false alarms will kill it.

 

It seems like you can sue for someone looking at you the wrong way these days! :p

 

I will change the question then.

 

Would DCL cruisers like to see this type of technology implemented on all DCL ships?

 

Even if it meant erroneous detections were to happen and cause an audible message to be played Shipwide so in their Stateroom as well if in a case of false detection or a delay in getting to the next port due to the ship stopping and lifeboat rescue teams being deployed?

 

ex techie

Edited December 2, 2013 by Ex techie

[Host Mick]

It seems like you can sue for someone looking at you the wrong way these days! :p

 

I will change the question then.

 

Would DCL cruisers like to see this type of technology implemented on all DCL ships?

 

Even if it meant erroneous detections were to happen and cause an audible message to be played Shipwide so in their Stateroom as well if in a case of false detection or a delay in getting to the next port due to the ship stopping and lifeboat rescue teams being deployed?

 

ex techie

 

How would you write that policy? Do you reverse course if the alarm sounds but the video shows nothing?

Keep going but log the position in case someone turns up missing?

That's a tough one.

[Ex techie]

How would you write that policy? Do you reverse course if the alarm sounds but the video shows nothing?

Keep going but log the position in case someone turns up missing?

That's a tough one.

 

I believe the SOP is to stop the ship, then launch a rescue vessel when a MOB is detected/reported.

 

HD CCTV Cams recording in real time would show an object falling. The article I posted mentions a period of before and after the motion was detected for officers to determine what has fallen off the ship:

 

Once an object is detected the Sensor runs a complex algorithm requiring 5 pulse echoes within parameters to determine size, shape and time in field to determine if the object meets the requirements for a human being. Once possible human target is determined the data is sent over a secure wired network (Cat 6 or Fiber optic) to the main Server. The server then is able to extrapolate the sensor ID the Time of Breach and queries which camera had the best view of the event.

 

The proper camera is selected, which is automatically pulled up in the lower right view window to show live feed of the event site.

While this is occurring the system can pull up DVR data from the time of event that that camera recorded and displays it in the upper right view window just above the live feed. This video is a 30 second loop 15 seconds before and 15 seconds after the event. The loop continually plays to give designated personnel time to determine if the event was a true Man Overboard or a false alarm such as a deck chair going over

 

You are right, it is a tough one.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

Looking back now at your first response to my post Mick, you say to give it a few years to see if it works but not how it should be tested.

 

If a line wants to install it, that's fine but mandatory? Let's give it a few years on a voluntary basis to see if it works well. I have the feeling that the false alarms will kill it.

 

In hindsight Host Mick, I should have asked you although you say it shouldn't be mandatory but voluntary, should the US Coast Guard or the IMO make it involuntary for some ships to be made to test it?

Should it be mandatory for all ships that are sailing out of US waters or International waters be fitted with these devices after a dry dock for a trial of say 5 years so the data call be collected, to see how effective they are?

 

I do not think any one cruise line or parent company will jump at the chance to be the first to trial them, given the lack of interest so far, so in that case, should it be mandatory for them to test the effectiveness?

 

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/cruise-lines-are-slow-to-implement-a-man-overboard-detection-system-for-passengers

 

ex techie

Edited December 2, 2013 by Ex techie

[chengkp75]

Looking back now at your first response to my post Mick, you say to give it a few years to see if it works but not how it should be tested.

 

 

 

In hindsight Host Mick, I should have asked you although you say it shouldn't be mandatory but voluntary, should the US Coast Guard or the IMO make it involuntary for some ships to be made to test it?

Should it be mandatory for all ships that are sailing out of US waters or International waters be fitted with these devices after a dry dock for a trial of say 5 years so the data call be collected, to see how effective they are?

 

I do not think any one cruise line or parent company will jump at the chance to be the first to trial them, given the lack of interest so far, so in that case, should it be mandatory for them to test the effectiveness?

 

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/cruise-lines-are-slow-to-implement-a-man-overboard-detection-system-for-passengers

 

ex techie

 

I agree with Mick, give it time to be tested in the marketplace. The only data you have on this is from the manufacturer, who can make any claim they want.

 

As far as mandatory/voluntary, you must realize that the USCG cannot require any equipment to be installed on a foreign flag ship unless it is required by the IMO. USCG can only enforce IMO SOLAS requirements on foreign flag vessels, not their own more strict regulations that apply to US flag vessels.

 

Given that there are currently cameras looking down the sides of the ships, and these are monitored by the surveillance department in real time, I'm not sure how much more effective this system would be, which is why there does not seem to be much interest in it. It would be more effective, IMHO, to outfit thermal cameras (if not fitted already) to view the sides at night. This is when most cruise ship overboards happen, and the thermal camera would be able to determine the difference between a person and a deck chair.

[Tonka's Skipper]

I believe the SOP is to stop the ship, then launch a rescue vessel when a MOB is detected/reported.

 

HD CCTV Cams recording in real time would show an object falling. The article I posted mentions a period of before and after the motion was detected for officers to determine what has fallen off the ship:

 

 

 

You are right, it is a tough one.

 

ex techie

 

 

Hey there Techie.

 

There is a procedure called a *Whilmson turn*, that gets a vessel turned 180* and back on the same track in the opposite direction. Basically you turn hard over opposite the side the MOB fell. When the vessels heading is 60* off, you reverse the helm and come to a heading 180* opposite your original course. You slow down or stop.

 

Depending on weather and other conditions, a boat is usually not put in the water until the missing person is spotted.

 

AKK

[Tonka's Skipper]

I agree with Mick, give it time to be tested in the marketplace. The only data you have on this is from the manufacturer, who can make any claim they want.

 

As far as mandatory/voluntary, you must realize that the USCG cannot require any equipment to be installed on a foreign flag ship unless it is required by the IMO. USCG can only enforce IMO SOLAS requirements on foreign flag vessels, not their own more strict regulations that apply to US flag vessels.

 

Given that there are currently cameras looking down the sides of the ships, and these are monitored by the surveillance department in real time, I'm not sure how much more effective this system would be, which is why there does not seem to be much interest in it. It would be more effective, IMHO, to outfit thermal cameras (if not fitted already) to view the sides at night. This is when most cruise ship overboards happen, and the thermal camera would be able to determine the difference between a person and a deck chair.

 

 

All very correct Chief.

 

 

One thing you learn fast at sea, is all the new gear has problems and sometimes plain do not work.

 

 

The idea of false alerts may cause considerable problems with passengers panicking looking to find family and friends.

 

This type of tech need lots of testing both in the lab and at sea in controlled conditions before being tried on working vessels.

 

AKK

[ducklite]

Frankly I don't want to pay higher fares to save idiots from the Darwin effect. Seriously, you don't just fall overboard. You must be doing something incredibly stupid, and I see it as a little gene pool cleansing.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[chengkp75]

All very correct Chief.

 

 

One thing you learn fast at sea' date=' is all the new gear has problems and sometimes plain do not work.

 

 

The idea of false alerts may cause considerable problems with passengers panicking looking to find family and friends.

 

This type of tech need lots of testing both in the lab and at sea in controlled conditions before being tried on working vessels.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Morning, Skipper;

 

Thought you might find this topic, like I did, as I lurked through the forums.

 

Techie; As the Skipper mentions, you generally do not launch the rescue boat unless the person is actually sighted. At sea, even in moderate conditions, rescue boat operations are highly dangerous, and you can very easily end up with even more people in the water, even with a well trained crew. A few years ago, I heard that the IMO is reconsidering the requirement for rescue boats on cargo ships due to the number of accidents during training, and the very difficult operation of launching and recovering these boats in the open ocean.

 

While the concept looks good, where the sensor trips the surveillance camera to play a loop repeatedly until an officer can determine whether there was an actual man overboard or not, I'm not sure if it would beat the old Mark-1 human eyeball. On the cruise ships I've worked on, we had a system both in the engine room and the bridge, where a fire alarm would set a CCTV monitor in each location to the camera closest to the alarm, and hold it there until manually reset. This is similar to what this man overboard system does. However, the surveillance office is still monitoring all cameras in real time, on 10+ monitors, and the surveillance guy can lock a monitor on a particular camera at any time to check on what is happening. All the cameras were being recorded to disc all the time, and these could be played back, even while the camera in question continued to show live video of the same area. These guys are pretty well trained to react to small glimpses of actions on the various screens, and to lock onto anything that looks out of the ordinary.

 

You know what it's like getting a head count at the muster drills, think what it would be like in the early evening when a call comes out for man overboard and head count. This could cause serious problems with passenger safety as people rush to find others in their party, etc. And if it was a false alarm, hoo boy.

[MasterNotCommander]

Nice idea, but I suspect as posted above, until its tried and tested nobody will be interested in installing it.

Override sensors will quickly be overcome with salt. Even the external CCTV are a nightmare to keep clean already.

 

The next step is the procedure, do you commence MOB procedures for every trigger? Putting the ship through crash stops, Williamson turns etc in the proximity of other vessels is less than ideal.

 

MOBs are rare, and even if detected, recovery is even more rare. Anyone that has used night vision goggles or cameras will know how difficult they are to use at sea.

[Gardeneroflove]

Frankly I don't want to pay higher fares to save idiots from the Darwin effect. Seriously, you don't just fall overboard. You must be doing something incredibly stupid, and I see it as a little gene pool cleansing.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

lol...that was kinda my thought.

 

Also, how often does someone fall overboard? Is it worth the addition money? If it's a drunk person every 10 years, no, if it happens monthly or yearly, then yeah...

[Ex techie]

Frankly I don't want to pay higher fares to save idiots from the Darwin effect. Seriously, you don't just fall overboard. You must be doing something incredibly stupid, and I see it as a little gene pool cleansing.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

lol...that was kinda my thought.

 

Also, how often does someone fall overboard? Is it worth the addition money? If it's a drunk person every 10 years, no, if it happens monthly or yearly, then yeah...

 

I completely understand both of your reservations to additional costs added to the cruise fare.

IFAIK, DCL has only ever had one MOB incident that has never been confirmed: http://www.rebecca-coriam.com/

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

I agree with Mick, give it time to be tested in the marketplace. The only data you have on this is from the manufacturer, who can make any claim they want.

 

As far as mandatory/voluntary, you must realize that the USCG cannot require any equipment to be installed on a foreign flag ship unless it is required by the IMO. USCG can only enforce IMO SOLAS requirements on foreign flag vessels, not their own more strict regulations that apply to US flag vessels.

 

Given that there are currently cameras looking down the sides of the ships, and these are monitored by the surveillance department in real time, I'm not sure how much more effective this system would be, which is why there does not seem to be much interest in it. It would be more effective, IMHO, to outfit thermal cameras (if not fitted already) to view the sides at night. This is when most cruise ship overboards happen, and the thermal camera would be able to determine the difference between a person and a deck chair.

 

Chief,

Obviously I do not know the in's and out's of what can be enforced or not, but thank you for the info.

 

I don't know what cruise ships you have worked on, but I wonder if DCL ships now have a surveillance department monitoring the cameras?

I know back when I worked aboard the Magic, cameras were very very scarce.

I imagine they have added more over the years to the classics, and the Dream class would have been built with many more.

 

As to a surveillance team on each ship monitoring the ships side mounted cameras, why do so many MOB's still occur?

I agree about the thermal imaging cameras though.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

Hey there Techie.

 

There is a procedure called a *Whilmson turn*' date=' that gets a vessel turned 180* and back on the same track in the opposite direction. Basically you turn hard over opposite the side the MOB fell. When the vessels heading is 60* off, you reverse the helm and come to a heading 180* opposite your original course. You slow down or stop.

 

Depending on weather and other conditions, a boat is usually not put in the water until the missing person is spotted.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Its a good job the Wonder didn't wait until this guy was actually spotted before launching the rescue boat/lifeboat!

 

http://afterthemouse.com/node/2448

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

All very correct Chief.

 

 

One thing you learn fast at sea' date=' is all the new gear has problems and sometimes plain do not work.

 

 

The idea of false alerts may cause considerable problems with passengers panicking looking to find family and friends.

 

This type of tech need lots of testing both in the lab and at sea in controlled conditions before being tried on working vessels.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Skipper,

 

I'm well aware of equipment failure at sea. I worked for DCL remember ;)

As I said in my post before, the system can bring up camera images of the falling object to be identified before any alert is made public.

Who is to say it hasn't been tested in the lab and at sea in controlled conditions?

And how can it be tried on working vessels if no cruise line "wants" to pay for it? Maybe the manufacturer could partner with a cruise line to have a test ship?

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

Nice idea, but I suspect as posted above, until its tried and tested nobody will be interested in installing it.

Override sensors will quickly be overcome with salt. Even the external CCTV are a nightmare to keep clean already.

 

The next step is the procedure, do you commence MOB procedures for every trigger? Putting the ship through crash stops, Williamson turns etc in the proximity of other vessels is less than ideal.

 

MOBs are rare, and even if detected, recovery is even more rare. Anyone that has used night vision goggles or cameras will know how difficult they are to use at sea.

 

Totally agree about the maintenance!

MOB's are rare given the sheer number of people that are carried on cruise ships everyday, but they happen, still.

If one life a year could be saved by this technology or similar, wouldn't it be worth it?

 

ex techie

[theshowmestate]

Didn't read the article but I'm thinking it would be a bit costly to the ships and that would be passed on to the passengers. To save lives though makes it a tough debate.

[chengkp75]

Its a good job the Wonder didn't wait until this guy was actually spotted before launching the rescue boat/lifeboat!

 

http://afterthemouse.com/node/2448

 

ex techie

 

Ah, but they had audio indication that the man was close. They most likely also used a search light after getting the ship stopped and quieted to pick him out, because you can't see s**t while sitting in a rescue boat (visibility in the day of maybe a hundred yards, and picking out a floating head isn't easy.

[chengkp75]

Chief,

Obviously I do not know the in's and out's of what can be enforced or not, but thank you for the info.

 

I don't know what cruise ships you have worked on, but I wonder if DCL ships now have a surveillance department monitoring the cameras? I worked for NCL, and as with most cruise lines (Disney excepted), the surveillance department started for the casino. But its use spread as litigation soared, and now on nearly every line there are cameras in most public spaces, in each guest corridor, and depending on the line, many, many in crew areas. I suspect that Disney has at least a couple of hundred cameras onboard their ships now, mostly required by insurance.

I know back when I worked aboard the Magic, cameras were very very scarce.

I imagine they have added more over the years to the classics, and the Dream class would have been built with many more.

 

As to a surveillance team on each ship monitoring the ships side mounted cameras, why do so many MOB's still occur? So many happen because people jump overboard. This technology won't stop people from jumping overboard, or getting drunk and falling overboard. If you are asking why so many are not found, then that is different, and has nothing to do with the radar technology. Reason #1 is that looking for something as small as a human head (which is what is above water) in an ocean is very difficult. Trained USCG rescue helicopter crews have difficulty finding fishermen floating in bright orange survival suits, let alone just a head with no special coloration around it. Add in seas, and you have increased the difficulty by an order of magnitude. Add in night, and you have made the proposition almost impossible. Reason #2 is hypothermia. Everyone knows that you can die from hypothermia in minutes in cold water, but even in tropical or near tropical water, your body loses heat quickly, and hypothermia can set in within an hour. Add alcohol, and that time decreases dramatically. Reason #3 is the fall. Even if you are wearing an approved lifejacket, jumping into the water from a height of 20-30 feet can snap your neck. Mariners are trained in how to jump from ships to prevent this. If you don't land feet first, say you hit something on the way down, or are drunk, you can snap your spine or knock yourself out. This would render your ability to assist in your rescue to nil.

I agree about the thermal imaging cameras though.

 

ex techie

 

Pretty grim outlook, but falling, jumping, or being pushed overboard is a pretty grim circumstance. The simple fact is that most of these things happen at night, and that hurts the recovery operation deeply. The things that will kill you far outweigh the things that will save you, even if the crew can stop the ship immediately and the seas are calm. I'm sorry to say, but this is just one of the hazards of going to sea, just like getting lost and dying of hypothermia on a mountain is part of hiking.

 

Could this save one life? Probably. Is it a panacea for losing passengers overboard? No. Will this be implemented? Probably not, until someone makes a PR crusade about the number of man overboard incidents, or someone famous jumps overboard.

[Ex techie]

Ah, but they had audio indication that the man was close. They most likely also used a search light after getting the ship stopped and quieted to pick him out, because you can't see s**t while sitting in a rescue boat (visibility in the day of maybe a hundred yards, and picking out a floating head isn't easy.

 

Absolutely about visibility!

 

But what I'm trying to say is he wasn't spotted by anyone on the other ship falling overboard, and his distress (alcohol induced or otherwise) was picked up by a secondary system, someone most likely on their balcony hearing him.

If a system could be introduced to alert the bridge officers when he fell/tripped/jumped OB, then surely that is a good thing?

He obviously regretted what he had done or had happened to him for being in that situation and wanted help.

 

I'm not arguing, but surely any kind of early warning detection system above what is already in place is better?

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

Pretty grim outlook, but falling, jumping, or being pushed overboard is a pretty grim circumstance. The simple fact is that most of these things happen at night, and that hurts the recovery operation deeply. The things that will kill you far outweigh the things that will save you, even if the crew can stop the ship immediately and the seas are calm. I'm sorry to say, but this is just one of the hazards of going to sea, just like getting lost and dying of hypothermia on a mountain is part of hiking.

 

Could this save one life? Probably. Is it a panacea for losing passengers overboard? No. Will this be implemented? Probably not, until someone makes a PR crusade about the number of man overboard incidents, or someone famous jumps overboard.

 

It is.

We were taught to jump feet first and crossed with the lifejacket over one shoulder, never worn around the neck for the reason you stated above.

 

And yes I did read about the system on "that site" lol!

 

 

ex techie

Edited December 3, 2013 by Ex techie

[chengkp75]

Absolutely about visibility!

 

But what I'm trying to say is he wasn't spotted by anyone on the other ship falling overboard, and his distress (alcohol induced or otherwise) was picked up by a secondary system, someone most likely on their balcony hearing him.

If a system could be introduced to alert the bridge officers when he fell/tripped/jumped OB, then surely that is a good thing?

He obviously regretted what he had done or had happened to him for being in that situation and wanted help.

 

I'm not arguing, but surely any kind of early warning detection system above what is already in place is better?

 

ex techie

 

I don't argue with anyone here. I exchange opinions! I'm not saying it couldn't help, but just like my campaign to get US flag cruise ships with USCG trained officers, crew and staff, it ain't gonna happen. The only force I see that would make this happen is the IMO, and they rarely move on something unless there is a disaster. Sadly, one person lost at a time is not going to generate that much interest. Just being realistic.

[Ex techie]

I don't argue with anyone here. I exchange opinions! I'm not saying it couldn't help, but just like my campaign to get US flag cruise ships with USCG trained officers, crew and staff, it ain't gonna happen. The only force I see that would make this happen is the IMO, and they rarely move on something unless there is a disaster. Sadly, one person lost at a time is not going to generate that much interest. Just being realistic.

 

Thank you for your reply.

And your honesty.

 

Would you think it could be a useful additional aid to those onboard?

 

ex techie