FleetLink Meeting
February 25, 2002
MIT Sea Grant Office

Present: Ann Bucklin (late), Ken Ekstrom, Cliff Goudey, Bob Groman, Bob Kohl, Peter Wiebe, Gary Williams

Guest: Loren Haury

Absent: Rollie Barnaby, Dave Holsom, Dave Mountain, C. Pendelton

The meeting began at 10:00am with Peter as chair until Ann arrived later in the morning.

Updates

Ken: Ken provided printouts from the on-line data system showing the list of dates where we have telemetry transmissions (meteorological data) from the Susan and Caitlyn (data through today), Adventurer (data through 2/24), and the Glenna and Jacob (data through 1/28). He summarized some of the reasons for missing data including intermittant sensors and a failing hard drive, on the Glenna and Jacob. He has a new drive for the G&J and will install it.

We discussed the new GUI enhancement which can record "by-catch" data, although it is more accurate to call and will be called "regulatory discard" data.

Bob G.: Bob reported that he fixed the bug in the Perl script that prevented negative numbers from being accepted in the database. This bug affected the tempature values shown from the MET sensor.

We discussed the status of the Iridium data communications alternative to Comsat and Ken said that he can send to the satellite but it doesn't go any further than that. Ken thought it was a software problem with the supplied software. One suggestion was to return all equipment and cabling to the vendor to test and correct the problems. Ken said he was going to test the unit from his van to see if the problem had to do with too much data loss over the 75 foot cable.

Cliff: Cliff will submit a request for suplemental funds to Ann to cover Ken's additional salary expenditures.

Gary: Gary reiterated that when Clearwater gets a message that a sensor is not working, they follow up my sending someone out. They have an operational system so can field swapp units as needed. Ken suggested that Gary check the web site to see if valid data are being posted since it provides timely updates on the status of all the sensors, even before the vessel returns to port.

The problem with a screw being too close to a circuit board wire has been fixed on two of the three vessels. This problem caused intermittant operation of the sensors.

Gary noted that all the systems are the same except for the connector locations on the junction boxes.

Ken thought that the Adventurer did not have a NetSensor unit. Gary will check on this.

We discussed the status of the NetSensor system. Bob K. mentioned that he wasn't using it because (1) he was afraid of loosing it again, and (2) he thought there was a long wait time and manual operation needed to upload the data. Ann assured him that he wouldn't be held responsible for loosing the unit and encouraged him to use it. On the second point, there was some confusion about this, but apparently the long wait time was no longer the case and that the system could work in the automatic (no user intervention required to upload the data) mode. Bob K. also noted that when he uses his three different nets, there is the task of moving the sensor amoung the nets.

We discussed whether the G&J NetSensor unit should be shipped back to Gary for testing and battery replacement. Ken also needs to add the coding necessary to add the date/time stamp at the time of the uploading from the Deckmate to the PC in order to accurately time stamp the data. We agreed to have Bob K. use the unit (without data telemetry ashore) and Ken would add the above change to the format. We would look at the data when the vessel returned to shore.

"Generation II" FleetLink Systems

Ann felt that no additional R&D funds could be found for FleetLink enhancements and that the next step would have to be commercialization, led by a commercial concern, with Clearwater being the logical choice. Ann said that she expected scientists to buy the FleetLink system if it were available "off the shelf", and she did not necessarily expect fishermen to buy it on their own.

Ann asked Bob K. what components in FleetLink he would like to see enhanced and/or added. Bob K.'s response included the following:

  1. Real-time bottom temperature display during tows would have been interesting to analyze. He understands that that is not possible. Near real-time display of this information might still be useful as long as it is tied to time/location.

  2. VTS option - more fishing vessels are installing Boattracks equipment in order to gain fishing time. Their $6K - $7K plus monthy fees are steep, but Bob K. thinks eventually it will be used widely. (It is mandatory for scallopers.) The FleetLink system could provide the same functionality, perhaps at less cost.

  3. Marketing aspect - the opportunity to inform the auction house of ones daily catch had the potential of increasing profits. Bob K. noted that there is a new catch selling system in development from Europe's Sea Fish Industry Authority (Seafish) that attemps to integrate weighing the catch at sea and communicating this information ashore.

  4. Produce fishing reports. BoatTracks is expected to have this capability within three months.

  5. E-mail between boats, owners, etc. E-mail can be useful for some fishermen, although there are alternatives such as SSB and cell phone (when within range).

  6. Opportunity for anciliary scientific research. Additional income from research experiments utilizing the fishing fleet provides an alternative source of income to fishermen.

Ann asked Gary to outline what he thought the "off the shelf system" would include. Gary said it would include the on-board computer, Wheelhouse software, sensors, and communications system. At first he wasn't sure if the shore-based data management software was necessary, but then agreed with others that it provided a ready made solution for handling the data. Users could certainly write their own data management software if their needs were not met. Documentation would have to be written and a mechanism to provide the Wheelhouse software via CD-ROM ("deployable state") would have to be accomplished. That is, either the software must be configurab,e in the field by the end user or that the hardware configuration and sensors were all "standard" so that no field configuration was necessary.

In discussing the software issues, several areas need to be clarified and resolved:

Gary noted that there are two possible sources of funds to bring something to the market, STTR's and SBIR's. The STTR's aim at technology transfer, that is, bringing an R&D activity from academia into the commercial realm. The SBIR's aim at having commercial firm(s) and academia work together to address commercialization.

Ann asked Gary to put together a 1 -2 page prospectus by March 7 so she could bring it to the attention of several people during an upcoming trip. Gary agreed to do it.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30pm.

Prepared by: R. Groman
Created: February 27, 2002
Modified: March 1, 2002