[SHIPPING] 'Ship systems failures & Y2K'
asked in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Q&A Forum
I've checked out the FAQ's, the Transport section of this Forum and I've
also checked a few other Web Sites. So far I have not found any really
useful info on the question of potential failure of ship's systems due to
Y2K. Personally I would expect any such failures to be confined to
either on board systems such as cargo refrigeration euipment, air
conditioning and the like or more significantly to radio, radar and
navigational equipment. I would hope that modern seafarer's retain at
least some of the skills enjoyed by their ancestors and that they could still
navigate by the stars if necessary or failing that they could look out the
window. My question is does anyone know where I can find more
specific info concerning ships and Y2K?
Asked by Jason Copland (copland@colognere.com) on April 27, 1998.
Answers
As an intro, here are my credentials. I went to sea for 16 years, some in
the US Navy and 10 in the Merchant Marine. I sailed Naval ships,
foreign-flag, union, non-union, military, tanker, passenger, tugs,
surveillance, etc. I hold an unlimited "Master's" license (Captain). I'm a
Commander in the Naval Reserve. I also have a Master's degree in
Computer Science and have been working in the computer industry for
almost 10 years, most recently in the Software Productivity and Software
Process Improvement areas.
During Operation Desert Storm, the maritime unions and Military Sealift
Command had to call up retirees in their 70's because these were the
only men who knew how to operate the old steam ships being brought out
of mothballs. All the young guys were diesel engineers. I learned celestial
navigation at the US Naval Academy and used it extensively until 1983.
However, I don't think celestial nav is taught anymore except as a
curiosity. "How in the world did they DO THAT?!" The computer
industry is faced with a similar problem: few programmers know any
details about the older programs. And if you have a ship whose
navigation and other control systems are dependent upon electronics and
your crew members don't have fallback knowledge or capabilities, there
will be a problem.
I foresee problems for the shipping industry in these areas and will touch
on them in greater detail: * Navigation and communication systems *
Engineroom controls * Cargo handling controls * Cargo handling controls
at the shipping terminal
-- Nav & Comm systems: These are things like the satellite
communications, satellite navigation (GPS = Global Positioning System),
Loran, Radar, even the gyroscope. Both here and in the engineroom,
much of the problem will be in the embedded clock chips which control
things. GPS has its own problems: it will reset to zero on 22 August 1999,
and the Navy has said it's the (receiver) manufacturer's responsibility to
compensate for that rollback. Did they do it? We'll find out. What about
the clock chips which were placed on the satellites themselves? Who will
ascend to an altitude of 22000 miles to replace them? By the way,
accurate celestial navigation is almost entirely dependent upon an
accurate clock -- that's why mariners value their chronometers and make
a ritual of their winding and record their error every day. I don't know if
the gyro has a clock in it; it wouldn't surprise me. Radars are used for
inshore navigation, and use timing for their pulses, so there is a risk that
the radar will not work or will give inaccurate ranges.
-- Engineroom controls: Even though I was a deck officer, I was
interested in things mechanical and used to visit the engineroom, learning
how to start and stop the (diesel) engines. The older the ship, the less
likely it is to have problems due to embedded clock controllers. I've sailed
all kinds. One ship I sailed had a very modern diesel-electric propulsion
system in which computers controlled, recorded and reported literally
everything. In fact, the engineroom was unmanned from 1700 until 0800.
We (from the bridge) still sent a seaman around every hour to look for
things that the computer might have missed. We found a big problem
about 0200 during an Arctic winter voyage - we were all grateful for that
roving security that saved our lives. The point is, whatever is controlled
by any kind of modern electronic controller might be at risk. So, on most
modern commercial or military ships, I would consider the engineroom to
be a *very* dangerous place on December 31st, 1999. When things go
wrong and stuff starts blowing up, it happens in a real hurry. We used to
joke about going to sea: "Months of sheer boredom punctuated by
moments of sheer terror." I've had both! I've also drifted for hours when
the power and propulsion quit working. Not bad in the Gulf of Mexico in
summer. Really ugly in the Arctic or any of the extreme latitudes in the
winter. OK-enough sea stories.
-- Cargo handling controls: I never had the privilege of actually working a
semi-automated vessel; I had to do everything the hard way. But I can
picture an embedded controller failing to close a valve, causing a
chemical spill or fouling things up in some other way.
-- Cargo handling controls at the shipping terminal: Same deal as the
shipboard cargo handling automation, except more potential for messy
results on shore. 14 years ago, my ship used to call at a certain
well-known chemical refinery in TX. Even then, the operator's booth was
automated, with a computer monitor on the desk. I had to call for an
emergency shutdown one night, and it was impressive to hear those huge,
power-actuated valves slamming shut in the distance among their tank
farm. All the operator had to do was hit one button. But that same
computer might also open the wrong ones or fail to shut others due to
embedded controller problems.
Finally: as a programmer and systems analyst, I've known about Ed
Yourdon for years - he's the "grandaddy" of practical programming. I
have great respect for him, and I know from my own research that his
figures on software project failures are accurate. Many large projects
fail, most have limited functionality and are full of bugs. Death march
projects which run late always cut corners. Two corners that really
shouldn't be cut are peer reviews (which remediation projects will
probably NEVER do) and testing. We will/have run out of time and
capacity for proper testing/fixing/retesting/cutover. I would say that most
projects done in a frantic mode are more prone to error, but testing will
certainly get cut short because of time.
Did I "over-answer" your question? Regards .................... gary
Answered by Gary Carlson (gscarlsn@erols.com) on April 27, 1998.
I have no personal knowledge of Y2K and shipping. However, a couple
of relevant articles have been printed in "Shipping Times." URLs are
below. These URLs came from the Y2K Clippings Page at
year2000.com
asia1.com.sg@PD>19980419?AND?@PD<19980426)'+1+1+'-PD,HDA,CO,PHA'
asia1.com.sg@PD>19980301?AND?@PD<19980327)'+1+2+'-PD,HDA,CO,PHA'
Answered by Vincent Perricelli (73377.1766@compuserve.com) on April 29, 1998.
____
From:
greenspun.com
yourdon.com |
