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?

-- Jason Copland (copland@colognere.com), 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

-- Gary Carlson (gscarlsn@erols.com), 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 http://www.year2000.com/y2karticles.html

http://www.asia1.com.sg/cgi-bin/ship/sp_dnews.pl?SHIP+'Millennium?Bug?AND?(@PD>19980419?AND?@PD<19980426)'+1+1+'-PD,HDA,CO,PHA'

http://www.asia1.com.sg/cgi-bin/ship/sp_dnews.pl?SHIP+'millennium?bug?AND?(@PD>19980301?AND?@PD<19980327)'+1+2+'-PD,HDA,CO,PHA'

-- Vincent Perricelli (73377.1766@compuserve.com), April 29, 1998.