Man overboard - Drones with infrared cameras?

[rvsullivan]

This is very interesting! I fly my own drone and it is nowhere near sophisticated enough for something like this, but it does have GPS, return home function and camera's. For the quality the OP is suggesting you are talking drones in the 10's of thousands of dollars, similar to what police and fire are now using.

If you look at the video in the above link, you will see from a small drone how small an entire human body appears in clear view. A head in the ocean is near invisible. If you watch the video's on tv of the military drones (10 of millions of dollars) you will see how little they can see. They also would almost have to be electric and battery life on those is usually 30 minutes or less (mine is 10-12), larger batteries are too heavy and reduce air time, gas is almost out of the question for this and other reasons.

I think it is great thinking on the OP's part, but near impossible in the "real' world.

[bbwex]

What the OP seems not to appreciate, though chengkp75 and others have tried to point out, is that cruise ships do not have the trained manpower or equipment to launch this sort of thing. There are drones -- large drones that use airports to take off and land -- and there are drones -- small ones that are tiny civilian ones that carry virtually no payload except a tiny camera or small military ones that only have a small camera but are more robust in general. A military ship has appropriate command centers manned at all times, but would still require the "launch" of the drone or drones. One thing that has not even been brought up yet is the wind at the alleged moment of "automated launch" the OP suggests. Let's just say that flying a plane is more complicated than just throw it up into the air! The ship would need to ensure that the apparent wind is within certain parameters to permit the launch of the drones. Then you would need trained people to launch each drone so that the process did not take an hour, then you would need someone to fly each one and keep the entire group under command and control. Cruise ships do not have advanced radar control systems.

 

Not to denigrate the crews of today's cruise ships, but in reviewing the history of some of the fires on ships, I doubt that the average watch stander is capable of determining how to get the appropriate wind over the deck, much less all of the other requirements.

 

On the positive side, the idea is not terrible either. It is not practical, not practicable on a modern cruise ship, but 20 years from now it might work, and in the meantime, military ships, or at least some, could start to consider this as a way to recover men overboard -- a more common issue for them than the cruise industry. And in the future, if there are adequate uplinks designed, command and control could be handled by some large, centralized SAR facility. The OP's idea is absolutely ahead of the technology for now, but might not be in 2040 or so!

[chengkp75]

What the OP seems not to appreciate, though chengkp75 and others have tried to point out, is that cruise ships do not have the trained manpower or equipment to launch this sort of thing. There are drones -- large drones that use airports to take off and land -- and there are drones -- small ones that are tiny civilian ones that carry virtually no payload except a tiny camera or small military ones that only have a small camera but are more robust in general. A military ship has appropriate command centers manned at all times, but would still require the "launch" of the drone or drones. One thing that has not even been brought up yet is the wind at the alleged moment of "automated launch" the OP suggests. Let's just say that flying a plane is more complicated than just throw it up into the air! The ship would need to ensure that the apparent wind is within certain parameters to permit the launch of the drones. Then you would need trained people to launch each drone so that the process did not take an hour, then you would need someone to fly each one and keep the entire group under command and control. Cruise ships do not have advanced radar control systems.

 

Not to denigrate the crews of today's cruise ships, but in reviewing the history of some of the fires on ships, I doubt that the average watch stander is capable of determining how to get the appropriate wind over the deck, much less all of the other requirements.

 

On the positive side, the idea is not terrible either. It is not practical, not practicable on a modern cruise ship, but 20 years from now it might work, and in the meantime, military ships, or at least some, could start to consider this as a way to recover men overboard -- a more common issue for them than the cruise industry. And in the future, if there are adequate uplinks designed, command and control could be handled by some large, centralized SAR facility. The OP's idea is absolutely ahead of the technology for now, but might not be in 2040 or so!

 

Completely agree. It may come, it may even come in my lifetime, but for now, I just ain't gonna happen. It's like the man overboard sensors. Until they are exhaustively tested in real world situations, I have my doubts of their efficacy, and cost effectiveness, except in a PR sense.

 

And the international crew on cruise ships are not required to be documented mariners, only the deck and engine crews, which account for at most 10% of the crew. So all of those waiters and cabin attendants you see drilling each week, that is the only training they have, what is received onboard. In my experience, it takes a good 10-15 minutes from the time that a fire code is announced until the first teams arrive at the on-scene command center, let alone start fighting the fire. This is a known phenomenon, even the USCG considers this to be normal and acceptable, given the variety of jobs and locations of the crew. For this reason, fire prevention is stressed in crew basic training, over fire fighting instruction for every crewmember. So, instantaneous launching of drones would just not happen.

 

I would think it would take almost as long to ready, man, and launch a 10 drone flight as it would take to make accountability for the passengers and crew, and slow and turn the ship around.

[AmazedByCruising]

OK, OK. I believe it won't work now :)

Thanks for the eleborate replies!

[DirtyDawg]

OK, OK. I believe it won't work now :)

Thanks for the eleborate replies!

 

"… good enough for our transatlantic friends … but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men."

 

That was from the British Parliamentary Committee, referring to Edison’s light bulb, 1878.

 

"We have reached the limits of what is possible with computers."

 

John Von Neumann, 1949

 

Don't let these non "out of the Hull" thinkers at CC get you down.;)

[Rala]

Now there's an idea, wearing a full metal suit to prevent being killed by lightening. :)

 

That gave me a chuckle! Maybe a rubber suit?!!!:D

[AmazedByCruising]

@chengkp75,

 

While you and others convinced it quite thoroughly that it might take some decennia for drones to be practical in such an incident, (and people might be wearing anti-gravity shoes by that time), this line amazes me: "The Norwegian Sky had an incident like this back in 2002 or so, when the vessel turned radically at sea speed. We disembarked 100+ passengers to hospitals in Vancouver with broken bones, and virtually every plate and glass on the ship was broken."

 

I'm not a doctor, but I have seen many statistics. It feels that so many injuries would lead to more than one death considering the average age on a ship, even if the passenger (who even might have wanted to die) was rescued.

 

The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Sky does show an incident similar (in 2001 though), but says it was a failing autopilot.

 

Besides that, I did wonder why the cruise I had that the only visible precaution I saw was the piano on stage that had ropes to keep it there.

 

Then again, knowing that the not all tables are bolted down is quite reassuring. I hate flying because you're totally in the hand of the captain. If it goes wrong, it goes wrong within minutes and there's really nothing you can do. On a ship, after everything goes wrong, it seems you still have plenty of time and many decisions you can make yourself. YouTube has a video of the Costa Concordia disaster where the cameraman asks the bar if they are open for business.

[boogs]

I hate flying because you're totally in the hand of the captain. If it goes wrong, it goes wrong within minutes and there's really nothing you can do. On a ship, after everything goes wrong, it seems you still have plenty of time and many decisions you can make yourself. YouTube has a video of the Costa Concordia disaster where the cameraman asks the bar if they are open for business.

 

Even on a plane when something goes wrong it is often many minutes to hours before the worst happens, and even then these are the very rare instances. On only the worst situations does the plane crash. For most "something goes wrong" incidents - estimates are more than 97% of all incidents where a flight had to be cut short - the pilots were able to land safely.

 

Being fearful of a crash in a plane borders on paranoia. Air travel is extremely safe, many times safer than by car, bus or train. http://www.bbc.com/travel/blog/20120127-travelwise-what-is-the-safest-mode-of-travel

Edited November 2, 2014 by boogs

[fortinweb]

 

Then again, knowing that the not all tables are bolted down is quite reassuring. I hate flying because you're totally in the hand of the captain. If it goes wrong, it goes wrong within minutes and there's really nothing you can do. On a ship, after everything goes wrong, it seems you still have plenty of time and many decisions you can make yourself. YouTube has a video of the Costa Concordia disaster where the cameraman asks the bar if they are open for business.

 

According to that bottom feeding, ambulance chasing, neanderthal of a lawyer Jim Walker, "compared to flying on an U.S. air carrier - cruise ships may well be the deadliest form of public transportation."

 

That is quite a lofty claim! :rolleyes:

 

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2012/03/articles/maritime-death/cruise-ships-the-deadliest-form-of-public-transportation/

Edited November 2, 2014 by fortinweb

[luddite]

Even on a plane when something goes wrong it is often many minutes to hours before the worst happens, and even then these are the very rare instances. On only the worst situations does the plane crash. For most "something goes wrong" incidents - estimates are more than 97% of all incidents where a flight had to be cut short - the pilots were able to land safely.

 

Being fearful of a crash in a plane borders on paranoia. Air travel is extremely safe, many times safer than by car, bus or train. http://www.bbc.com/travel/blog/20120127-travelwise-what-is-the-safest-mode-of-travel

 

A couple of points: I have been on a commercial flight that made a crash landing. This is way less fun than it sounds like.

I know a guy who is an airline mechanic. His stories will ground you.

Air travel isn't safer. When your car's alternator quits because the mechanic didn't use the right fastener---you pull off the road. The airplane pilot is the first guy at the scene of the crash. When a twin engine plane loses an engine--there is just enough power to get the plane to the crash site.

Flying is very dangerous.

[sloopsailor]

A couple of points: I have been on a commercial flight that made a crash landing. This is way less fun than it sounds like.

I know a guy who is an airline mechanic. His stories will ground you.

Air travel isn't safer. When your car's alternator quits because the mechanic didn't use the right fastener---you pull off the road. The airplane pilot is the first guy at the scene of the crash. When a twin engine plane loses an engine--there is just enough power to get the plane to the crash site.

Flying is very dangerous.

 

Statistics don't prove your point. If you consider flying to be very dangerous, then driving is much more so. It isn't a part coming off your alternator that is the problem. It's the thousands of potential obstacles that you can run into, or that can run into you. Millions more people are hurt or killed in a car than when in a plane. Using your rational, even walking would be considered very dangerous - you could trip on your shoelace and break your neck.

 

Unlike you, I don't consider accidents something to make jokes about.

[AmazedByCruising]

Jim Walker even thinks a case where a passenger died on Half Moon Cay should be counted as a death/cruise.

 

There is currently a thread where people are talking lightheartedly about a complete liveboat that is laying on deck and useless after a huge wave. Quite a lot can happen that is totally not supposed to happen.

 

Even if the statistics would be worse for cruises than for flying, I'd still prefer cruising a lot!

[Capt_BJ]

For a very long time the US Coast Guard has had a goal of eliminating SEARCH from SEARCH AND RESCUE ... and they have a Research and Development Center to pursue CG centric topics . .

 

Infrared/heat search technology is FAR from new but still today is not 'good enuf' to detect a warm basketball (approximate size of a human head) from a couple of hundred feet in water that's nearly the same temp'. A body in the waters of the arctic present a significant temp' difference .. for a short time (and short life expectancy) .... a body in the water in the Carb' has a much smaller temp' difference . . . in other words ... heat difference needs to be BIG for today's stuff . . . the glowing end of a tank cannon that just fired is a BIG target .... a fart is a small target

 

Will technology get there .... eventually I'm sure it will. But I wonder how many OTHER warm basketballs we'll find . . . . whale noses and seagulls sitting on the water . . .

 

************

couldn't the drones be connected to computers that could identify a face? What's that song from Annie? Tomorrow . . .

Edited November 3, 2014 by Capt_BJ

[luddite]

Statistics don't prove your point. If you consider flying to be very dangerous, then driving is much more so. It isn't a part coming off your alternator that is the problem. It's the thousands of potential obstacles that you can run into, or that can run into you. Millions more people are hurt or killed in a car than when in a plane. Using your rational, even walking would be considered very dangerous - you could trip on your shoelace and break your neck.

 

Unlike you, I don't consider accidents something to make jokes about.

 

A part comes off the alternator on the plane....you don't just coast to a stop and call a tow truck. Of course there are more hurt in cars. There are more people in cars.

 

I have been on a plane that made a crash landing. I'm not joking about it. It is a dangerous to be off the ground.

[sloopsailor]

A part comes off the alternator on the plane....you don't just coast to a stop and call a tow truck. Of course there are more hurt in cars. There are more people in cars.

 

I'm not joking about it.

 

Really? With comments like "The airplane pilot is the first guy at the scene of the crash" and " When a twin engine plane loses an engine--there is just enough power to get the plane to the crash site", you were indeed joking about this. It is not a laughing matter, even though you have shown that you think it is.

 

As for which is more dangerous, motor vehicles or airplanes, recent statistics debunk your claim:

 

"The rate of motor vehicle deaths in 2010 was 1.11 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles" (or 11.10 fatalities per billion miles.)

 

The rate of airplane deaths was 0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles.

 

(source: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/comparing-fatality-risks-united-states-transportation-across-modes-time#)

 

A direct comparison between these two numbers shows that the rate of motor vehicle deaths is 158.57 times HIGHER than air deaths per million miles. According to my physics and math training, if something is 158.5 times greater than the other, it means it is MORE. In this case, travel by land is indeed MORE dangerous than by air.

 

BTW: two engine airplanes are required to be able to maintain controlled flight with one engine shut down to be certified to fly by the FAA. Look up this commonly known fact.

 

I have had a private pilot's license for over 40 years. This means I am able to fly for pleasure or for business purposes on an unpaid basis. I used to own a twin engine Beechcraft Baron 58 in the mid 1970's that I used to support my business. I think I have a pretty good idea how this stuff works.

Edited November 4, 2014 by sloopsailor

[sloopsailor]

Duplicate. See previous post.

Edited November 4, 2014 by sloopsailor

[luddite]

Really? With comments like "The airplane pilot is the first guy at the scene of the crash" and " When a twin engine plane loses an engine--there is just enough power to get the plane to the crash site", you were indeed joking about this. It is not a laughing matter, even though you have shown that you think it is.

 

As for which is more dangerous, motor vehicles or airplanes, recent statistics debunk your claim:

 

"The rate of motor vehicle deaths in 2010 was 1.11 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles" (or 11.10 fatalities per billion miles.)

 

The rate of airplane deaths was 0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles.

 

(source: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/comparing-fatality-risks-united-states-transportation-across-modes-time#)

 

A direct comparison between these two numbers shows that the rate of motor vehicle deaths is 158.57 times HIGHER than air deaths per million miles. According to my physics and math training, if something is 158.5 times greater than the other, it means it is MORE. In this case, travel by land is indeed MORE dangerous than by air.

 

BTW: two engine airplanes are required to be able to maintain controlled flight with one engine shut down to be certified to fly by the FAA. Look up this commonly known fact.

 

I have had a private pilot's license for over 40 years. This means I am able to fly for pleasure or for business purposes on an unpaid basis. I used to own a twin engine Beechcraft Baron 58 in the mid 1970's that I used to support my business. I think I have a pretty good idea how this stuff works.

 

Death per miles isn't in play. It's a nonsense argument.

 

Truisms from pilots aren't jokes. A Piper Cub is the safest plane in ever made. It can only just barely get you killed.

You're a pilot? You should know that it's dangerous. Been on a plane that crashed?

Edited November 4, 2014 by luddite

[luddite]

.

 

BTW: two engine airplanes are required to be able to maintain controlled flight with one engine shut down to be certified to fly by the FAA. Look up this commonly known fact.

 

.

 

Tell that to the people in Wichita last week.

Ooop! Can't tell THEM can we?

Edited November 4, 2014 by luddite

[fortinweb]

Let's get back to talking about cruising, please. :(

Edited November 4, 2014 by fortinweb

[AmazedByCruising]

Here's a project http://www.gizmag.com/project-ryptide/35437/ that uses drones to prevent drowning. It's about bringing a life ring to the victim, not finding him though.

 

I really would not be surprised if within the next 5 years or even faster drones will be flying non stop behind a ship looking for infrared radiation without any human intervention until the drone thinks there's a possible problem. Within seconds after the alarm someone at the bridge can look at the images and decide if it's a real person. If it is, the drone switches on a big light and drops a life ring.

 

The next part is the rescue itself. To make that happen fast, wouldn't it be possible to release a small rescue boat from the back of the ship instead of suddenly turning the whole ship around, breaking many bones and expensive tableware? That seems to be off the shelf technology for oil rigs and you'd only need a very small one, big enough to seat maybe three crew members and hopefully the victim.

[Flatbush Flyer]

Here's a project http://www.gizmag.com/project-ryptide/35437/ that uses drones to prevent drowning. It's about bringing a life ring to the victim, not finding him though.

 

 

 

I really would not be surprised if within the next 5 years or even faster drones will be flying non stop behind a ship looking for infrared radiation without any human intervention until the drone thinks there's a possible problem. Within seconds after the alarm someone at the bridge can look at the images and decide if it's a real person. If it is, the drone switches on a big light and drops a life ring.

 

 

 

The next part is the rescue itself. To make that happen fast, wouldn't it be possible to release a small rescue boat from the back of the ship instead of suddenly turning the whole ship around, breaking many bones and expensive tableware? That seems to be off the shelf technology for oil rigs and you'd only need a very small one, big enough to seat maybe three crew members and hopefully the victim.

 

 

Reread your own post (#29): like this one, most of the future scenarios you post do not take into consideration all the variables which have already contributed to their being dismissed..

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[AmazedByCruising]

Reread your own post (#29): like this one, most of the future scenarios you post do not take into consideration all the variables which have already contributed to their being dismissed..

 

I have (again) changed my opinion since post #29 when I was convinced it couldn't be done.

 

Now I think that, in a just a few years time, maybe 10, no trained crew would be needed at all, and the price of having drones capable of detecting man overboard situations flying around full time will drop to at most a few hundred dollars a day.

 

If I had the time to do so, I would be starting a company based on rescue drones. Besides the cruise industry, there are a many places where drones could be the obvious answer to finding and rescuing people in dangerous situations. Oil rigs, mountain climbing, wildfires, etc will ensure enough demand to do the research and bring prices down. The (quite small) market of cruise ships not wanting drowning passengers will benefit from that.

[fortinweb]

I have (again) changed my opinion since post #29 when I was convinced it couldn't be done.

 

Now I think that, in a just a few years time, maybe 10, no trained crew would be needed at all, and the price of having drones capable of detecting man overboard situations flying around full time will drop to at most a few hundred dollars a day.

 

If I had the time to do so, I would be starting a company based on rescue drones. Besides the cruise industry, there are a many places where drones could be the obvious answer to finding and rescuing people in dangerous situations. Oil rigs, mountain climbing, wildfires, etc will ensure enough demand to do the research and bring prices down. The (quite small) market of cruise ships not wanting drowning passengers will benefit from that.

 

It would be easier, and probably much cheaper in the long run, to simply build 10 foot tall glass walls around the entire ship to prevent the very rare occurrence of a man overboard situation. Low tech, low maintenance, and no manpower needed to monitor and maintain a fleet of drones that may not be used for years at a time, if ever. There are cruise ships out there today that have been in service for 15 years or longer and have never experienced a man overboard situation. That's a long time to maintain a fleet of drones for nothing.

 

My opinion? Yours is a solution looking desperately for a problem to solve to justify itself.

Edited January 12, 2015 by fortinweb

[AmazedByCruising]

It would be easier, and probably much cheaper in the long run, to simply build 10 foot tall glass walls around the entire ship to prevent the very rare occurrence of a man overboard situation. Low tech, low maintenance, and no manpower needed to monitor and maintain a fleet of drones that may not be used for years at a time, if ever. There are cruise ships out there today that have been in service for 15 years or longer and have never experienced a man overboard situation. That's a long time to maintain a fleet of drones for nothing.

 

My opinion? Yours is a solution looking desperately for a problem to solve to justify itself.

 

 

You might think I'm a drone fanatic but I even don't own one. The only time I even saw one was a drone that filmed our ship in a port.

 

As for the other argument. There are cruise ships out there today that have been in service for 15 years or longer that have never sunk. Not once. Isn't it ridiculous that so many cabins are having an obstructed view by these lifeboats, which are also very expensive, need a lot of training, and don't make the ship look nice at all!?

 

I think drones will be very cheap in quite near future, and will be mandatory on ships that visit US ports just years after the first cruiseline tried them out.

[iheartbda]

..........................

My opinion? Yours is a solution looking desperately for a problem to solve to justify itself.

Give the man a key chain.:D