We have had interest in the FPB 115 from many markets, one of which is its use for survey and scientific work. The safety, comfort, and low cost of operation, make it ideal for these applications. So we will start with the pilot house and lower deck layouts for this model.
The first drawing shows an empty pilot house.
To put the space into perspective, the FPB 115 pilot house has the same volume as the great room on Wind Horse, a photo of which you see above.
Now the details. We have been chatting with commercial operators and professional captains to see what they want in their ultimate bridge area. There are two major differences from the yacht configuration.
First, the captain needs to be able to operate the vessel while facing aft, so he can keep watch on and coordinate his actions with what is happening on the aft deck.
To accommodate this requirement there is an aft facing helm at the aft end of the pilot house, and another outside on the pilot house deck.
The second item is the array of desks/work stations. Whether doing survey work or scientific experiments these will be in constant use.
Next we draw your attention to the large table, with hinged leaves. This will serve as a chart table, conference center, and general work surface.
Aft and adjacent to the second helm is space for a fridge, microwave, and sink.
The furniture layout constrains your body in big seas, something we consider essential, even on a vessel as large as the FPB 115.
What is missing is a day head. Not one professional we interviewed wanted to give up space or sight lines for a small head compartment in the pilot house.
Posted by Steve Dashew (June 25, 2011)
June 25th, 2011 at 7:16 am
Steve,
Looks fantasic so far. Loving the updates.
I can’t wait to see what you’ve done with the non commercial version.
Quote:
“To put the space into perspective, the FPB 115 pilot house has the same volume as the great room on Wind Horse”
WOW, that starts putting the scale of the 115 into perspective.
The great room on the 115 will be truly impressive!
Anthony
June 25th, 2011 at 7:23 am
Re. day head: In my experience, one head/toilet is perfectly OK for 4 people; two are more than enough for 10 people. Since it looks like you already have one private head per two berths, I think you’re already well into the “luxuriously over-specified” category on this front- a day head would just be extra complexity and wasted space.
I love the “command centre” layout (it seems unfair to call it just a pilothouse); we had a similar (but much cruder) layout in a design office where I used to work, and it was very effective- spin around to conference, spin again to have all your drawings and calculations. Triple-up on workstation monitors and it’ll feel like the bridge of a Star Trek ship, or a Navy vessel, except for the bit about being surrounded by beautiful woodwork.
June 25th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Hi Steve,
Very interesting stuff! (as always)
With so many help positions, are you planning on using one of the many integrated helm/propulsion control systems or stick with your tried and true autopilot and a multi-station engine control?
I’m also wondering if you are offering a more utilitarian commercial interior finish as opposed to the lovely yacht finishes on your other boats?
All the best,
David
June 26th, 2011 at 4:27 am
Morning David:
We have not made a decision on integrated or stand alone. That will depend on reliability. But we w ill be using electronic engine controls, since the engines are almost certainly going to have too be tier lll compliant by th e time they are purchased. Interior finish will depend on the client’s desire. We can do a very smart looking interior using industrial finishes,
June 26th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I like the Pilot house, but, i would like the ability to shut out the glare from work stations behind me.
On watch, at night, my nav screens can all be dimmed in some manner.
Boffins working away rarely have any concept for watchkeepers needs.
The solution could be as simple as curtains!
June 26th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Scotto and Richard:
This pilot house layout came about with the direct involvement of professionals in the survey business and there is lots of other space in the great room. The key here is coordination between scientist/cartographers and the master of the vessel.
June 26th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Steve – Putting the scientific/survey workstations in the pilothouse gives them a wonderful space to work in but I would think the professional captains would want a PH environment where they could totally control light for night ops. It would seem putting all these workstations in the PH would/might make them off-limits during night-running as the glow from their monitors and, more likely, the work/desk lights they’d need for using documents, etc. would impair night vision of the night watchstanders.
Did no one mention that as a concern?
June 27th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Here’s what happens when you don’t sweat the details. I’ve edited post to take out the political comments. Apparently to control cost, the Navy deleted the “Cathodic Protection System,” and the builder agreed. My reason for posting this is to emphasize that what has been done with the Windhorse and the FPB series is a lot more complex than it seems on the surface. There’s more to these boats than a pretty face, although it is nice having a pretty face.
“Builder Blames Navy as Brand-New Warship Disintegrates
By David Axe June 23, 2011 | 11:00 am | Categories: Navy
The Navy’s newest warship is slowly disappearing, one molecule at a time.
the disintegration is real . . .
The afflicted vessel is USS Independence . . .
the Navy has discovered “aggressive” corrosion around Independence’s engines. The problem is so bad that the barely year-old ship will have to be laid up in a San Diego drydock so workers can replace whole chunks of her hull.
the 418-foot-long warship is dissolving due to one whopper of a design flaw . . .
There are technical terms for this kind of disintegration. Austal USA, Independence’s Alabama-based builder, calls it “galvanic corrosion.”
“That suggests to me the metal is completely gone, not rusted,” naval analyst Raymond Pritchett wrote of Independence’s problem.
Independence’s corrosion is concentrated in her water jets — shipboard versions of airplane engines — where steel “impeller housings” come in contact with the surrounding aluminum structure. Electrical charges possibly originating in the ship’s combat systems apparently sparked the electrolysis.
It’s not clear why Austal and the Navy didn’t see this coming. Austal has built hundreds of aluminum ferries for civilian customers. The Navy, for its part, has operated mixed aluminum-and-steel warships in the past.
The list of deleted items includes something called a “Cathodic Protection System,” which is designed to prevent electrolysis.
Independence will get the protection system installed at the first opportunity, and future LCSs will include it from the beginning, according to Pritchett.
“Galvanic corrosion has not been a factor on any Austal-built and fully maintained vessel,” Austal stressed,
June 27th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Hi John:
The navy galvanic issue is amazing for its stupidty. Builders, desgners, inspectors, and the Navy all should know better. The US Taxpayer’s hard earned money at work…
June 28th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
“are you planning on using one of the many integrated helm/propulsion control systems or stick with your tried and true autopilot and a multi-station engine control?”
There is a BIG difference with what happens when you enable electronics to communicate and when you integrate electronics, either at the hw level of sw level. The key question is what happens when one component or program fails? In a properly designed communications based system, failure simply removes that item or program, in a badly designed integrated based system, the whole system crashes.
Whenever you’re dealing with computer/electronics people you use the word “integrated” at great risk of ending up with a system that crashes with great frequency and creativity.
Lest someone think I’m speaking out of my “pay grade”, before I retired I was a senior member of the IEEE in the computer section, a senior member of the AIAA in the computer section and as my last job in the computer world, managed the central computer section of a major development center in the aerospace industry with eveything from supercomputers to 2700 PCs linked in a network locally and countless remote connections. No brag, just fact.
Beware of “integration”.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:03 am
Well put John:
I am not a fan of integration and much prefer stand alones talking. However, we have some very tech savvy owners who have gone the integration route. Perhaps some of them, or others with direct experience will comment.