Clarification about the term "GPS Shutdown"

Juergen Nieveler writes:

Why? It can be placed just about anywhere.

The more I look, the more spots I see.

In any case, you can just design the system so that any loss of signal
sets off an alarm.

That's still not much of a restriction. Practically the entire ship
above the waterline has a clear view of the sky.

Lots of space available on both.

Why not? And some spots are inaccessible to painters, anyway.

If the system is designed correctly, any tampering with it will set off
an alarm, so even if the crew is forced to walk the plank, it won't
help.

So you don't actually have any case histories? The _Pirates of the
Caribbean_ ride at Disneyland probably isn't a good reference.

 

You can connect the button to a small wireless local transmitter. Then
the crew can't trace the button to the base unit.

So what do you do once you detect that a ship is being hijacked?

 

Ships don't move at the speed of sound. They can be spotted by
satellites, too.

These are very fanciful speculations. Ships don't move that fast. And
it would take more than a few buckets of paint to repaint a ship. And
repainting it doesn't hide its overall structure.

Plus there's that big waterfall at the end.

 

Your point makes little difference. You simply design the system such
that any loss of signal triggers the alarm.

As a rule, smart people are not dishonest, because they see the
long-term advantages of honesty for themselves and for society.

This sounds like pure conjecture.

It's easy to hide a small transmitter on a large ship. The crew doesn't
have to know where it is. And even if they know and Captain Hook
disables the transmitter, doing this alerts the owner to his presence.

 

We just inform the owner immediately - it's up to them what they do next,
though we can supply the data in real-time to the relevant authorities.

In the case of SSAS (Ship Security Alert System) which is fitted to most
vessels (over 500 tons) by now, there is a set procedure that must be
followed - basically reporting to the maritime authorities in the country of
vessel flag, the destination country & the country in which the alert
occurred.

So, if a Panama flagged vessel got hijacked in Indonesian waters while
enroute to Singapore, maritime authorities in all 3 countries would be
notified.

Of course there are lots of vessels that are not legally required to have
SSAS installed but nevertheless have similar systems. If one of these are
triggered then the owner will do whatever they feel best.

Dave

The email address used for sending these postings is not valid.
All replies to the group please.

 

Ships move relatively fast nowadays, and the ocean is huge. And the
units that would do the tracking don't move at the speed of sound
either, they'd be frigates or destroyers, doing maybe 30 knots.

Tracking ships via satellite images isn't THAT easy, even if you had
access to military satellites (which I'd rather doubt, unless the ship
is US-owned), and ships can be camouflaged rather easy by giving them a
paint job - paint over the name, new markings on the deckhouse, and
you'll have to come close to check wether it's the ship you're looking
for.

You don't need to repaint the hull. Just paint a new name on it and
change some details of the rest of the ship, and she'll look like a
totally different ship. The overall structure doesn't really help all
that much, ships of the same type look quite similar. Of course that
won't help once the ship gets boarded for inspection, but it would help
fool patrol plane crews and keep the inspection teams away.

Juergen Nieveler

 

Being dishonest and not getting caught has rather more long term
advantages.

The transmitter location would have to follow some requirements, which
severly limits the choice of spots. And unless there are anti-piracy-
patrols, alerting the owner will only allow him to call his insurance
company faster.

Even the best tracking system is worthless until you find a way to use
the information it provides.


Juergen Nieveler

 

How widespread is use of these systems? Once all ships are equipped
with them, pirates will be forced to adapt and react...

If the crew don't know where the antenna is, how do you stop them from
painting it accidentally? It would have to be marked as "Do not paint"-
spot, just like all other antennas, wouldn't it?

Of course.

And then what? That's the most interesting question - if the signal is
lost, are there any naval forces nearby that can be asked to
investigate?

I agree that a tracking system that lets you know immediately that your
vessel is under attack is valuable - but only if you can actually do
something about the attack.

Indeed, that's what I see as the worst problem. If there was a military
alliance in that region (SEATO never really got off the ground...),
things would be easier. Last I've heard is that the US is backing a
"Regional Maritime Security Initiative", but I don't really think
Indonesia is going to buy into this (as it's a mostly Islamic country).
Add to that the fact that in SE Asia there are some troublespots where
the local governments don't have control and the rebels are even less
US-friendly (Aceh on Sumatra, for example), and the corruption problems
in the region (officials won't do much to stop the pirates if they
receive enough money...).

Juergen Nieveler

 

Not THAT many, actually

I can see a lot of spots that AREN'T available.

Of course, and that would be done anyway. The question then is: How
fast can naval units reach the spot where you lost contact.

Let's take a container ship as an example. Most of the deckspace is
used for containers. Between the containers is no space, and reception
would be poor anyway. Outside the containers are the walkways - also
not a good spot for an antenna, people would keep treading on it. The
sides of the ship would be ideal - but then you'd need more than one
antenna, otherwise line-of-sight to the satellite could be masked by
the ship. The bow would be a nice place, but as at least part of the
system would be on the bridge, it would mean that you'd have to pull
wires all through the ship. Easily done when the ship is built, but not
as easily done on older ships. Placing it near the radar or radio
antennas might cause problems with interference, especially since a
small antenna will have less reserves to "burn through" such
interferences. It would have to be a spot that doesn't get accessed by
the crew too much, because the crew don't know where it is and could
accidentally paint over it, reducing its effectiveness.

The best spot for the antenna would be on the mast, somewhere above the
radar antenna - but of course that would be the first place where
anyone would go looking for it.

Nope. The containers take up most of the space on a container ship.

If you paint an antenna, the paint will severly weaken the signal. A
small antenna doesn't have that much power to begin with... painting
over it with normal paint would render it useless.

And then what? You know your ship is lost, but unless any naval units
can be raised the ship will stay lost.


Juergen Nieveler

 

The areas are known, but patroling an area like the Malacca Straits
isn't THAT easy, both politically and technically. Most notably, the
countries in that region won't really allow foreign navy ships into
their regional waters but lack a big enough navy to patrol these waters
alone. Add to that some government officials who turn a blind eye in
return for some donations... if it was that easy to stop piracy, there
wouldn't be a need for tracking systems and electric fences on ships.


Juergen Nieveler

 

Dave

Thank you very much for your insightful and informative posts on this
subject. It really opens up my mind to what is happening in the world
outside my own sometimes small sphere in which I live, work, and think.

Very thought provoking and quite enlightening.

Thanks for sharing your real world experience with me. I have really enjoyed
it and learned a lot of new things in the process.

Best wishes and good luck to you.

Regards
JGS

 

Jürgen,

I would guess the usual problem is collusion between the pirates
and the authorities. This is common in developing countries.

The pirate will call his brother, who works for the waterway
authorities, and the latter will mislead any rescue activities.

Hans-Georg

 

I can't find the picture on the web at the moment, but one company has a nice
Orbcomm tracking unit that fits into the ribs on top of each container. Nice
unit - onboard batteries last 6 months or a year.

I've been to a trade show where a South African company introduced a system
where each individual container is fitted with a satellite tracking system &
also a local wireless network. Therefore, a container on the bottom of the
stack can radio out to the network that it has lost refridgeration, and the
top container can tx that by satellite. I'd hate to be paying for that, but
this is the way the industry is heading - to stop this system working you are
going to have to wreck every container as they are all individually battery
powered, and wrecking the first one breaks the data link, making the rest
"more suspicious".

Dave

The email address used for sending these postings is not valid.
All replies to the group please.

 

SSAS is required by IMO under SOLAS Convention Chapter XI-2/6 on all ships
over 500 tons meeting certain requirements, though some types still have
another year or so before being compulsory:
http://www.us.weathernews.com/marine/asap.htm
(grey panel on right side of web page gives exact requirements)

As I mentioned before, many non-SOLAS boats are fitting themselves with
similar (& often more covert) systems anyway. SSAS is anti-terrorism, while
the main problem around Asia is piracy. Slightly different requirements, as
we are dealing with different levels of sophistication of the enemy.

Pirates are usually villagers or fishermen & not technically adept at all - 9
times out of 10 they will not touch anything on board, and 1 time out of 10
they will slash any wires they can find & disable all power they can find.
Never heard of a tracking system being disabled, and in fact turning off
external power enables a transmission saying "I've lost power".

Terrorists are a different kettle of fish. They are pretty likely to study
their target in advance & are harder to combat. The SSAS is supposed to
combat against this sort of thing, but if it doesn't, blame the IMO, not me!
I design anti-piracy units myself, and would have done the SSAS
differently.

Might I suggest you don't spend much time around real working ships?
Crews only paint what they have to, and don't paint anything that isn't metal
- standard practice. Out of hundreds of vessels I haven't seen any of them
with painted antennas on our regular inspections.

It would have to be marked as "Do not paint"-

Take a look for yourself:

http://www.satamatics.com/content/news/22_apr_2004_ocean_alert_for_Posidonia.htm
http://www.skywave.com/products/DMR-200-D.html

We don't add any sticker on afterwards.

Not usually, but there are often other boats that can be used to help. First
step is to contact the boat itself & make sure all is ok, in a manner which
will not alert any hijackers - I'll leave this to your imagination. If
contact can't be raised then the situation is more worrying, and further
steps are taken.

True, but we are only one link in the chain.

Well, there is an alliance, just that the USA isn't invited.

Really, only India & Indonesia are the problem areas around here, with
Nigeria over the other side of the world. Indonesia is a poor country with a
damn lot of islands, and not much of a Navy. Maybe the USA could donate a few
hundred patrol boats instead of wanting to stomp around where they aren't
welcome?

Dave

The email address used for sending these postings is not valid.
All replies to the group please.

 

Look around, idiot.

 

I'm honored. I'd not want to have my postings read by mindless
assholes like you.

 

He didn't. And he arrived at the correct destination.

 

As a rule, smart people are not dishonest, because they see the
long-term advantages of honesty for themselves and for society. Stupid
people are not good at understanding and seeing long-term consequences,
and so they will assume that dishonesty is best.

The reason society as a whole tends to favor honesty is that it is
largely run by the more intelligent segments of the population, and
these intelligent people see the long-term advantages of honesty.

 

There is a large amount of room for error in transatlantic crossings.

 

Sure, asshole; in your fantasy world, anything is possible.

You're the one insisting GPS units which require power are
superior to map and compass which require no fuel of any kind.