best inspection class ROV

[David]

I am in the first steps of buying an ROV for inspection work in about 700m of water. I expect to use the ROV in the future for light inspection work, surverys etc.

What is the best inspection Class ROV? I have been looking at the Falcon DR as I see a lot of people have experience with them and they do have the 1000m depth rating, but what about the others?

Thanks

[Savante]

without a doubt- seaeyes rock

[David]

I have the impression that Sea Eyes are very good as well and it seems like they have a lot of personnel available but what other ROVs have you worked with?

[rishi27]

Are you looking for electrical or hydraulic vehicles? I think Fugro’s Sealion are good, but too bad they won’t sell. The Swift vehicles are good ( a better version of Sealion). Mostly used in the Asia Pacific region.

[David]

Actually i am just looking for an inspection class ROV that will be dependable, robust and whose company is dependable and fast with repairs. The ROV will be in a remote area so I also need for it to be fairly easy to understand/ repair. What are the "swift vechiles"? are they better than the Sea Eyes?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

The guy has no clue what he is on about or hasn’t read the start of the thread. Not unusual for a dumb rover.
Swift is a work class built by MTQ who sold out to OI. Sealions are flogged out work class (cant believe i am saying work class and Sealion in the same sentence…)l

[Ray Shields]

Seaeyes without a doubt. They are the Ford of the ROV Eyeball world.

Everything from a simple flying camera model to a light workclass. And LOTS of people out there with Seaeye experience (if you pay the going rate of course 😆 )

[temp]

davidrob

The Seaeye range are probably the best for capability, performance, reliability and maintainability, with a proven track-record of years working offshore and inshore on ‘serious’ work. The name is recognised throughout the industry and is a mature product, a known quantity.

Not to say that some of the other cheaper ROV’s e.g some of the microvs don’t have their applications. I understand you are using Videorays for pre-deployment inspection of jackets in Turkey. Don’t like them myself due to lack of lateral function – prefer LBV. Fairly cheap for basic versions, but soon adds up for deeper rated ones plus beefed up thrusters, sonar, spares etc.

Seaeye do a range of vehicles to suit various tasks and requirements, and there is commonality of spares between different variants (although Falcon uses a different architecture from rest of range). Useful for if planning on expanding operations. Better to stick with same manufacturers range, rather than build up a mish-mash of types. Reduces stock of spares you need to keep on the shelf, easier to get experienced guys to work on other vehicles by same manufacturer.

As mentioned, plenty of Seaeye-experienced guys around, if experienced on one type you can generally work on any of the range.
They give pretty good technical support in my experiences of them over several years. Yes the systems do have their own idiosyncrasies and design flaws as any other vehicle does, but better than most I’ve worked with.

Choice of the right vehicle is only part of it though, as you are probably already aware. Reliability and successful operations don’t just happen – you need to get the right people, be prepared to pay the going rate and look after them to keep hold of good guys.

Spares provision is also an area often lacking, with even the major players time and time again skimping on even critical spares – ends up costing more long-term due to down-time etc. Vital if operating in areas with difficult supply chain. Worst is when companies then try and blame the inevitable results of their planning shortcomings and lack of spares provision on the guys offshore.

Hope it goes ok
temp

[temp]

davidrob

Forgot to mention, SubAtlantic also do a good range. I was put off them myself early on due to reliability and performance issues with their original thrusters, amongst other things, with some of their first vehicles (early Apaches). Found their customer service at that time (6 years ago)was to try and blame problems on the users, even though we were effectively doing their field trials for them.

However, I hear that they have changed a lot now though in their attitude, and have improved the vehicles, thrusters etc a great deal.
I have heard very good reports about the newer models especially the ones using DC brushless thrusters such as Mohican and Super Mohawk. Not used them myself but also worth a look at, ask around people who have.

temp

[James McLauchlan]

The guy has no clue what he is on about or hasn’t read the start of the thread. Not unusual for a dumb rover.

We welcome healthy or even heated debate here.
What I would prefer not to see is direct digs at individuals for no real reason.
That comes very close to what I would describe as flaming and it’s not on. Do it offshore if that turns your crank but please keep it off this Forum.

Disagree by all means… state your reason why and keep the debate going in an adult manner. The last three posts [above] are a prime example of what I am suggesting is the correct way to go.

best regards
James Mc

[Lloyd Todd]

davidrob,

I own and operate a 5 year old Sub-atlantic Cherokee system, and wound recommened Sub-Atlantic’s kit.

Best Regards Mad-dog

[Andy Shiers]

I would say Seaeye vehicles have now had a long standing in the ROV industry for reliability and low cost maintenance !
However ! It is only low cost if you keep on top of the maintenance !
Seaeye marine will bend over backwards to sell you their equipment BUT
There after sales is totally and utterly crap ! 👿
Additional equipment is overpriced but you have no choice to pay it as you canna get the spares from anyone else ! And it is my experience when their piece of equipment has broken down , They will never ever except that they are wrong ! Only ! ROV PILOT error !
A classic is the tether. A manufacturer fuck-up whereby some of the outer wires have a kink every metre or so.
This causes a short on the lims and re-term.
Seaeye would not except it was a problem ! Frustratingly after repeated reqs for another spare tether and cutting back 10 m of the sheathing to expose the kinks They relented ! But not before sending a fax to us saying that it was because the pilots had been putting too many turns in the tether !
This problem with the tether was not just a single occasion, It has happened to me on three jobs ! Three different operators in different parts of the world !
Should I name the Manufacturer that made the tethers for Seaeye , James ?
I have a number of grievances to do with certain ROV manufacturers logged ! like the problem above 😯
The question is Will you have a long and good day rate to pay it off ?
AND plenty of dosh to by the spares to keep it running 😈

[David]

Thanks for all of the replies. We are expanding right now and of course when ever you talk to a rep they have an idea of why their unit is the best. I put a lot more stock in responses from the field.

Lost boy, About the tether twists, I was at Sea Eye and interestingly they pointed out a bit on the screen where it shows how many twists the ROV had done? Maybe that is a new invention since your problem?

How long ago was that and do you get it on the fibre optic tether as well?

[misiuek]

dave

i think you’ll find thats turns not twists! which can amount to the same and its not a "seaeye" innovation all rovs have this warning …. you always get some twat who’ll start the shift handover … ‘how many turns’ or with the old pioneers it used to look pretty with the revolving lights!

its part of the software is your answer wether its got fibres or not doesnt make difference.
as it is those tethers that seaeye are providing from oceanics with the fibres are "fantastic" they take some punishment and are pretty forgiving (thankgod!)

[David]

OK, turns……..but on the screens that I have seen it shows a + and a – so the guys at Sea Eye were suggesting you could unwind any turn you got in the tether.

[Author]

Posts