Object Detection Capabilities of the Bathymetry Systems Utilised for the 2015 CDS

feature
soundings Issue 66 Winter 2016 11
The Object Detection Capabilities of the Bathymetry
Systems Utilised for the 2015 Common Dataset
by Luke Elliott Bathymetric Appraisal Officer, United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
Introduction
hallow Survey was established in 1999, in Sydney, Australia and is the
international conference series for high-resolution hydrographic surveys
in shallow water. The fundamental aim of the series is to promote
progress in survey techniques within the coastal zone. Of the many topics
covered at the conference, considerable emphasis is given to the Common
Dataset (CDS). The CDS allows manufacturers, relevant to shallow water
surveying, to test equipment against market competitors over the same survey
area. This is not limited to, but includes, conventional echo sounding and
remote sensing techniques for acquiring bathymetry, backscatter and water
column data. Sub-bottom profilers, sidescan sonars and laser scanners,
amongst other equipment, have featured in previous datasets. The key
objective of the CDS is to allow those within the hydrographic community to
make comparisons between the latest survey technologies. This enables
judgement to be made upon the various approaches employed by
manufacturers to the many elements of shallow water surveying.
System
Release
Date
Cost1 Technology2 BDM3 Max.
Frequency
No. of
Beams
Max.
Swath
Angle
Beamwidth4
Al-tT x Ac-tR
Kongsberg5
EM2040DRX
2009 High MBES A, P 400kHz 5126 200° 0.5 x 1.0
Teledyne
RESON
SeaBat 7125
2007 High MBES A, P 400kHz 512 165° 1.0 x 0.5
Teledyne
RESON
SeaBat T20P
2013 Medium MBES A, P 400kHz 512 165° 1.0 x 1.0
EdgeTech
6205
2014 Medium MPES P 550kHz N/A 200° 0.5 x N/A
Kongsberg
GeoSwath
Plus 500kHz
2013 Low PMBS P 500kHz N/A 240° 0.5 x N/A
Kongsberg
Mesotech M3
2014 Low MBES A, P 500kHz 256 120° 3.0 x 1.6
Teledyne
Odom
Hydrographic
MB1
2012 Low MBES A, P 220kHz 512 120° 3.0 x 4.0
WASSP
WMB3250
2013 Low MBES A, P 160kHz 224 120° 3.5 x 0.54
Notes:
1. Cost: Low £0-50,000; Medium £50-100,000; High £100,000+
2. MPES (Multiphase Echo Sounder), MBES (Multibeam Echo Sounder), PMBS (Phase Measuring
Bathymetric Sonar)
3. Bottom Detection Method: A = Amplitude; P = Phase. Primary is given first
4. Al-tT (Along-track Transmit), Ac-tR (Across-track Receive). Phase measuring sonars (EdgeTech 6205,
Kongsberg GeoSwath Plus 500kHz) do not have a calculated across-track footprint (resolution) as for
these systems; the across-track resolution is a function of bandwidth (1/Pulse Width) rather than
beamwidth. For this reason they cannot be compared like for like against the MBES systems in terms of
beamwidth.
5. There were two datasets analysed for the Kongsberg EM2040DRX; one completed in single swath
mode and one in dual swath mode.
6. 512 actual beams but the system can acquire 800/1600 depths per ping in single swath and dual swath
modes respectively. This is because the system creates extra bottom detections (named “soft beams”)
by analysing the phase signal of the return, thus increasing the data density.
Table 1: Manufacturers and systems that completed the TDT for the dataset
Following on from a paper by Andrew Talbot
comparing the systems utilised in the 2005
CDS, this study provides an analysis of all
the systems used to compile the latest
dataset (collected in Plymouth, UK during the
summer of 2014 and spring 2015). The key
theme of the paper is the Target Detection
Task (TDT), a new element previously not
utilised. The task was instigated to test the
object detection capabilities of the systems.
Table 1 lists the manufacturers and systems
that took part. A 250kHz GeoSwath system
was also used but unfortunately was, at the
time, unreadable in Caris HIPS and SIPS
and thus removed from the study.
Unlike the 2005 CDS, where only one vessel
was used in a five day window, this time four
vessels were used in a two month period
(July to August 2014). Each had various
positioning and motion reference systems
fitted, reducing the commonality between the
datasets. Further to this, Kongsberg returned
in March 2015 to add an additional two
systems to the dataset. Commonality was
thus in the specification provided to those
undertaking the TDT. Strict line plans were
set, consisting of three lines for each target
(Figure 1) with the following criteria: 140°
swath coverage sector (±70° from nadir); 6kn
speed over ground (SOG); North to South
orientation with an offline tolerance of 5m.
Figure 1: TDT within Task Area 1, Plymouth Sound.
The location chart (top-right) shows Areas 1 and 2
within the Sound. Later, lines are referred to in
relation to this orientation
Targets for Comparison
Target 1 is thought to be the remains of a
WWII loading jetty used during the D-Day
landings. Due to the stringent algorithms
used by many manufacturers, mid-water
objects can be mistaken for noise or not
S

feature
12 soundings Issue 66 Winter 2016
detected at all. One of the steel girders is
horizontal in the water column and is the
object analysed in this section. It stands 6m
proud of the seabed in approximately 14m of
water.
Targets 2 and 3 are believed to be the
wrecks of two ammunition barges in depths
of approximately 9 and 30m respectively.
Accurate dimensions of the barges were not
available, making it impossible to complete a
like-for-like comparison of number of hits on
the target. To avoid any bias caused by
subjectivity, the targets were therefore
analysed qualitatively.
Target 4 is a 2m cube laid for the 2005 CDS
collection in order to test the capability of
systems to detect 2m objects in <40m of
water as per IHO Order 1a Standards, LINZ
MB-1 and UK CHP specifications.
Data Analysis
Each manufacturer supplied datasets in a
variety of formats. For the purpose of this
study, full density unprocessed (raw)
datasets were used for analysis. This was in
order to offer each system an unbiased
potential of getting a maximum number of
detections on each target and avoid the
subjectivity of data cleaning. This was suited
to the MBES and MPES systems with little
outliers. The interferometric GeoSwath
system required basic processing to remove
apparent noise and errors within the data in
order to make the targets suitable for
analysis (Figure 2). Bathymetric data only
was used for this comparison. Although
some systems were able to collect
backscatter and/or water column data,
analysis of this data was beyond the scope of
this study.
Top: Raw, unprocessed dataset
Bottom: Dataset with obvious noise removed
Figure 2: Noise levels in the GeoSwath dataset.
Both diagrams are orientated in the same direction
All datasets were analysed using Caris HIPS and SIPS software. Supplied
tide files and sound velocity profiles (SVPs) were applied to the datasets as
necessary. Some manufacturers included lines additional to those set in the
line plan. In the majority of cases these were removed from the study and only
those adhering to the line plan were analysed, unless that option was not
available.
Model
Lines
completed
Line speed
(5+ knots)
N-S
Orientation
Maximum Offline
Distance (m)
EM2040DRX Dual Swath 12/12 12/12 12/12 7.76
EM2040DRX Single Swath 12/12 6/12 12/12 11.54
SeaBat 7125 12/12 5/12 12/12 5.72
SeaBat T20P 12/12 3/12 12/12 4.93
6205 12/12 11/12 10/12 4.78
GeoSwath Plus 500kHz 12/12 3/12 6/12 6.49
Mesotech M3 12/12 3/12 7/12 7.03
MB1 12/12 3/12 12/12 5.73
WMB3250 9/12 9/9 12/12 2.17
Table 2: Abiding by the specification for the TDT. Red values indicate where companies
did not adhere to the specification
All manufacturers, except WASSP, completed the set line plan over each
target, but the majority did so with a maximum offline distance greater than
the required 5m and at speeds other than the 6kn specified (Table 2). It was
noted that the observed maximum tolerances were in the extremities of the
lines and not over the targets themselves, so no lines were rejected from the
analysis on the basis of offline tolerance. Plymouth Sound is a complex body
of water with a series of strong tidal streams. This makes achieving a constant
speed difficult so, for the purpose of this study, any speed over 5kn was
acceptable. Slower speeds tend to be advantageous to the target detection
capability of bathymetric swath systems, whereas higher speeds tend to result
in a lower target detection capability, hence no upper limit was set.
Manufacturers were asked to keep a swath angle of 140° (±70° either side of
nadir). The swath angle value could not be displayed in Caris, in which case it
is assumed that manufacturers followed the specification for the swath width
(provided the system was capable of a 140° swath). Three of the systems:
M3, MB1 and WMB3250 could achieve only 120° (±60° either side of nadir)
and thus could not fully abide with the specification. An unbiased like-for-like
comparison of the systems was not possible for two reasons. Firstly, datasets
were collected at different times of the year, under different meteorological
and tidal conditions. Secondly, only one company (WASSP) fully observed the
specification for each completed line (Table 2). Unfortunately, due to time
constraints, WASSP only completed nine of the twelve lines.
Target 1: Objects in the water column
The images in Figure 3 show the centre line over the target as run by each
system [other lines are available from the author on request] and Figure 4
indicates the number of hits on the horizontal girder per line. The GeoSwath
system had the most hits on the horizontal girder in both the port and centre
lines. However, it was the only system to require cleaning in order to define
the structure (Figure 2). In the square area used to take each sample almost
18% of points were removed from the GeoSwath dataset. The M3 system did
particularly well in both the centre and starboard lines and the MB1 had
similar values to the SeaBat 7125 in the port and centre lines, with
considerably more hits in the starboard line. The EM2040DRX failed to pick
up the girder in either single or dual-swath mode in the centre line, as did the
6205 in the starboard line. The WMB3250 failed to pick up the girder in any of
the lines (Figure 4).
Target 2: Ammunition barge at 9m
All systems detected the ammunition barge in all lines, with varying detail,
noise levels and definition. The images in Figure 5 show the centre line over
the barge as run by the systems.

feature
Figure 3: The centre line over Target 1 as run by each system
Figure 4: Number of hits on the horizontal steel girder in the water column per line for each
system
Target 3: Ammunition barge at 30m
The images in Figure 6 show the centre line over the barge as run by the
systems. All systems got hits on Target 3 in at least one line. Owing to the
greater depth than Target 2, many of the systems failed to produce clear
visualisation. In reality, if this was an unknown target it wouldn't necessarily be
detected. Due to time constraints WASSP
did not submit a centre line for this target.
Target 4: The 2m cube
The images in Figure 7 show a
consolidation of all three lines over the
cube as a shoal depth true position
surface. Seven of the nine systems clearly
detected an object at the known location
of the 2m cube. The 6205 shows a small
patch of noise in the correct location but
would not be substantive enough to be
identified as a target by a data processor.
The GeoSwath surface is the noisiest
dataset but shows the presence of an
object in the correct area.
Six of the nine systems clearly detected
the target on every completed line (Figure
8). WASSP only had time to collect data
for the centre line. In all but two cases
systems which detected the object met the
LINZ MB-1 and UK CHP specification.
The M3 and GeoSwath systems each had
a line, port and centre respectively, that
detected the cube without meeting the
requirements of the LINZ or UK CHP
specification (Table 3).
Although, statistically, the 6205 met the
specification (Table 3), detections were
not significant (Figure 9). The points are
only 35cm from the seabed and do not
clearly define the cube surfaces, making
the detection questionable.
As previously noted, many manufacturers
supplied additional lines. Figure 10 shows
that the 6205 can detect the cube despite
not appearing substantially in the set line
plan.
Discussion
Target 1
Overall the 7125 and T20P provide the
sharpest images of the horizontal girder,
although not as high a point density as the
others, suggesting that greater quality
comes from the more expensive systems
and data density isn't always the key to
detection. Contrary to this, the
EM2040DRX didn't fully detect the girder
in any of the lines in either dual or single
swath. Considering the system works at
the same frequency as the 7125 and
T20P, it would be reasonable to assume
that it is the bottom detection algorithms
employed by Kongsberg rather than the
system itself that are causing the lack of
detection. This said, the bar may have
been detected within the collected water
column data but this wasn't examined as
part of this study. The M3, one of the low
cost systems also manufactured by
Kongsberg, did particularly well at
producing a sharp image of the girder in
two of the lines and with a very high point
density.
continued over page
Kongsberg 2040DRX – Dual Swath Kongsberg 2040DRX – Single Swath Teledyne Reson Seabat 7125
Teledyne Reson Seabat T20P Edgetech 6205 Kongsberg GeoSwath Plus 500kHz
Kongsberg Mesotech M3 Teledyne Odom MB1 WASSP WMB-3250

feature
Targets 2 and 3
The trend throughout is that the detail of
Target 2 is far higher than Target 3. As depth
increases, beams become more spread out,
increasing the beam footprint size, which
lowers the resolution and quality of the
image. By zooming in on the images it is
possible to see the differences between the
along-track hit spacing (known also as
profiles). The spacing is a lot wider in Target
3 owing to the greater depth, hence less
detail is expressed by all datasets.
All systems detected the barges with varying
levels of detail. Throughout the images of the
two targets the trend is that the more
expensive systems (EM2040DRX, 7125,
T20P) gave the finest detail. However, in
three of the six lines run over the two barges,
the M3 (one of the cheaper systems) had
comparable levels of detail to these systems.
The GeoSwath system gave good levels of
detail in the outer lines, but not in the centre
lines. This highlights the common issue with
PMBS systems: a lack of coverage in the
nadir region due to a blind spot directly
beneath the system.
For both targets the cheaper systems (M3,
MB1 and WMB3250) show extensive
divergence in quality between the centre and
outer lines. These systems are limited to
120° swath angle which, it is assumed, was
used over the targets. It is well known that
MBES systems lose data quality in their outer
beams due to an increased beam footprint
size, which is highlighted with these targets
in particular. The more expensive systems
have much smaller beam footprints
throughout the swath than the cheaper
systems (Table 1).
Target 4
All the systems detected the cube in at least
one pass, proving that all the systems are
capable of achieving IHO Order 1a. Only four
datasets got meaningful detection on all
three passes: EM2040DRX (Single/Dual
Swath mode), 7125 and T20P. The
GeoSwath and M3 systems each had a line
that detected the object but failed to meet the
LINZ MB-1 and UK CHP specifications. The
GeoSwath got eight hits on target (Figure 11:
top); nine hits are required to satisfy the
specifications.
The M3 system got only one hit on the cube
in the port line, giving no definition of its
shape or dimensions (Figure 11: bottom). If
this hadn't been an object of known location it
would have been removed as noise. It may
have triggered the processor to analyse the
water column, backscatter (MBES) or co-
registered sidescan (PMBS/MPES). This
highlights the subjectivity of data cleaning
and the fact that simply detecting a target is
not a stringent enough standard; it needs to
be detected consistently with a reasonable
number of depths. This demonstrates the
importance of survey specifications, such as
the ones set by LINZ and the UK CHP,
Figure 7: A 1m resolution shoal depth true position surface of all three lines for each
system. Each image represents an area of 33m x 30m
Figure 8: Number of hits on the cube per line for each system
Data Not Supplied
Kongsberg 2040DRX
Dual Swath
Kongsberg 2040DRX
Single Swath
Teledyne Reson Seabat
7125
Teledyne Reson Seabat
T20P
Edgetech 6205
Kongsberg GeoSwath Plus
500kHz

feature
Port Line Centre Line Starboard Line
Detected Spec. Detected Spec. Detected Spec.
EM2040DRX Dual Swath Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
EM2040DRX Single Swath Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
SeaBat 7125 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
SeaBat T20P Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6205 No No No No *Yes * *Yes*
GeoSwath Plus 500kHz Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
M3 Yes No Yes Yes No No
MB1 No No Yes Yes No No
WMB3250 Yes Yes
Table 3: Did the systems detect the object and pass the LINZ MB-1 and
UK CHP specifications? The results are purely statistical i.e. minimum of
nine hits on target, three across-track by three along-track
Figure 9: Starboard line over the cube as run by the 6205. Although
there are hits on the cube, no definition of its surfaces is apparent and
the minimum depth is not detected
Top: Detection of the cube by the 6205
Bottom: Location of the additional line (P: Port, C: Centre, S: Starboard). The
square is the 33m x 30m area used to take all samples of Target 4
Figure 10: Additional line completed by EdgeTech
Top: Centre pass completed with the GeoSwath 500kHz system
Bottom: Port line pass for the M3 system
Figure 11: Detecting a target but not at the LINZ MB-1 and UK CHP
specifications
specifying detection in greater detail; for example three
along-track by three across-track hits.
Analysis of the 2m cube also reiterates the outcome of
Target 1: hits on the target alone are not a good measure
of a system's quality. In the port and starboard lines for
instance, the GeoSwath system has the third and second
highest value for hits on target respectively but fails to
define the surfaces of the cube. The 7125 has fewer hits
than the T20P but with superior definition of the cube
detected in both the outer lines.
The M3 and MB1 systems detected the cube in the centre
line but not in the outer lines. This is explained by
examining the calculated beam footprints of the systems
(Table 4). In order to get a reliable detection, the beam
footprint of the system must be smaller than the target
being detected. It was found that the cube is at
approximately 38m depth, directly below the system (at
nadir, 0°) in the centre line and approximately 45° swath
angle when passed in the outer lines.
Footprint dimensions (m)
at 0°
Footprint dimensions (m)
at 45°
EM2040DRX 0.33 x 0.66 0.47 x 1.33
M3 1.99 x 1.06 2.81 x 2.12
MB1 1.99 x 2.65 2.81 x 7.53
SeaBat 7125 0.66 x 0.33 0.94 x 0.94
SeaBat T20P 0.66 x 0.66 0.94 x 1.88
WMB3250 2.32 x 0.36 3.28 x 1.01
Table 4: MBES beam footprint at 38m depth (approx. depth of the
cube) at 0° (centre line) and 45° (average swath angle for the
appearance of the cube in the port and starboard lines)
continued over page

feature
Table 4 shows that the beam footprint dimensions at both angles for
the EM2040DRX, 7125 and T20P remain below 2m hence detection of
the cube in all lines. For the M3 and MB1 the beam footprint is larger
than the cube in both dimensions at 45°; hence detections were not
made.
This said; the M3 had the single most hits in a line, with 200 in the
centre line. A possible explanation for this is due to the large 3° along-
track beamwidth. In the nadir and inner beams, MBES tend to use only
amplitude detection and thus cannot differentiate where exactly within
the 3° the target is, as it measures the range for the angle series within
the swath. For a strongly reflecting target, like the cube, off-beam hits
could also be reported as in-beam. If this hypothesis is correct, it also
explains why both the M3 and MB1 show the width of the cube as
3.2m and 3.8m respectively. The T20P has a 0.5° wider across-track
beamwidth than the 7125 and thus could be the reason for it having
more hits on the cube despite being the lower specification system of
the two.
Although statistically the 6205 detected the cube in the starboard line,
points were only 35cm from the seabed and there is no definition on
the surfaces. Regardless, statistically speaking, the requirements for
passing the LINZ MB-1 and UK CHP specification were achieved
(Figure 9). Had the cube been an unknown object, it would not have
been detected making it the only one to fail the detection in all lines.
However in an additional line (Figure 10), the cube was detected when
approached from a different angle to the line plan. This line provided
comparable definition of the top of the cube to any of the other
systems. The average speed for the additional line was 5.17kn, 0.89 -
1.43kn slower than the lines in the set line plan. This could suggest
that the 6205 should operate at lower speeds in order to fully comply
with IHO Order 1a.
An anomaly was apparent in the port lines between the single and dual
swath datasets for the EM2040DRX (as shown in Figure 8). The single
had over three times the hits than the dual swath dataset. The centre
and starboard line show the dual swath mode giving approximately
double the points acquired in single mode as expected given the
technology. The anomaly could have occurred due to a change in
vessel speed between the port lines, the line offset between the two, a
difference in tide or a drastic change in environmental conditions
between lines, i.e. changing currents or similar.
With regards to the vessel speed, the single swath line was completed
at a faster average speed seemingly putting it at a disadvantage. Over
the cube, the maximum line offset between the two was 1.5m and the
tide difference between completing the two lines was 0.6m both of
which are negligible. Further analysis of the speed was completed for
the EM2040DRX (Table 5). By measuring the average distance
between pings surrounding the cube and multiplying by the ping rate
for the line gives the speed the vessel was travelling at a specific point,
as opposed to assuming the average for the line.
Port
Ping
Spacing (m)
Ping Rate
(pulse/sec)
Speed of
line (m/s)
Calculated speed
at cube (kn)
Average speed
of line (kn)
Dual Swath 0.6 6.39 3.83 7.45 5.66
Single Swath 0.2 7.01 1.40 2.73 6.00
Centre
Dual Swath 0.5 6.76 3.38 6.57 6.23
Single Swath 0.5 6.97 3.49 6.77 5.95
Starboard
Dual Swath 0.6 6.40 3.84 7.46 6.06
Single Swath 0.4 6.68 2.67 5.19 5.64
Table 5: Further analysis for the speed of the line over the cube for the
EM2040DRX. In reality, the ping rate for the dual swath is double the value
presented in the table
It is possible to see that for the centre and starboard
lines, the actual speed over the cube is within
±1.5kn of the average. The port line differs
considerably more; in dual swath mode the cube
was being passed 1.79kn faster than the average for
the line and in single swath mode it was passed at a
speed 3.27kn slower than the average line speed.
Therefore the single swath port line was completed
at approximately a third of the speed hence having
almost tripled the points on the cube in comparison
to the system in dual swath mode.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to compare bathymetry
systems used for the 2015 Common Dataset (CDS).
A comparison of this sort is difficult to complete
without subtle bias from external influences. The
most unbiased method would be to use only one
vessel, on one day and have a system either side of
it operating concurrently. However this would limit
the dataset to only two systems and they might
interfere with each other. The CDS has made it
possible for unlimited companies to take part in a
practical manner. The ideal situation would have
been to have one vessel at different times through
the year; this would still have natural bias with
regards to tide and meteorology but greatly reduces
human induced bias toward the systems. Four
vessels with various motion compensation and
navigation systems were used to complete the CDS
meaning subtle bias will be inherent to particular
systems. In reality every vessel setup is different
and each bathymetry system should work to its full
potential regardless, making the comparisons viable.
Many companies completed the Target Detection
(TDT) without adhering to the criteria set out in the
original specification. The required swath angle
could not be adhered to by all systems and could
not easily be proven within the software. As a result
no system judgement should be made without taking
into account the line statistics: heading; ping rate;
average speed of line; and swath width.
Suggestions for future CDSs are to:
 keep line plans with the same stringency
 allow lines to be run in either direction, i.e. into
tidal streams, for more accurate speed keeping
 reduce both swath angle and survey speed to
allow all systems to operate under more optimum
conditions.
For the reasons above, a like for like comparison to
determine which system is best at the various
elements of the TDT is not viable. It does however
provide analysis of each dataset and the conditions
for which the task was carried out, allowing
judgement on each system to be made. This study
proves that all systems that took part have the ability
to achieve IHO Order 1a standard set out in the
LINZ MB-1 and UK CHP specifications through
analysis of Target 4; the 2m cube. This analysis
emphasises the subjectivity of data cleaning and
that simply 'detecting' a target is not a stringent
enough standard. This highlights the importance of
survey specifications like the LINZ MB-1 and UK
CHP.
In general, the more expensive systems
(EM2040DRX, 7125 and T20P) produce the best
results for target detection. However the results for

feature
Target 1 suggests that Kongsberg need
to adjust the bottom detection algorithms
for the EM2040DRX to better detect mid-
water contacts. Of the lower cost
systems the M3 appears to consistently
produce good results although not as
sharp as the more expensive systems.
This said the system completed 8 out of
12 lines slower than any other system
suggesting it to be working at more
optimum conditions.
Acknowledgements
Firstly, thanks to Gwyn Jones, Tim Scott
and Andrew Talbot for their extensive
advice, guidance and teaching during the
writing of this paper.
Thanks also for your co-operation to all
manufacturers that took part in the CDS,
along with everyone involved in the data
collection.
Special thanks to Lisa Brisson (EdgeTech),
Peter Hogarth, Craig Wallace (Kongsberg),
Pim Kuus (Teledyne RESON) and Justin
Kiel (WASSP), my principal contacts with
regards to the CDS, who provided answers
to the never-ending series of questions.
Finally, many thanks to Nolwenn Collouard
at Caris for sharing her extensive
knowledge of the company's software,
which enabled me to bring the various
wide-ranging datasets together and provide
advice when errors occurred.
The Author
Luke Elliott is a
Bathymetric
Appraisal Officer at
the United Kingdom
Hydrographic Office.
He is responsible for
validating datasets
primarily collected
for the Civil
Hydrography
Programme prior to
use in Chart compilation.
He has recently completed the MSc
Hydrography programme at Plymouth
University. He also holds a BSc in
Geography with Ocean Science.
Luke previously worked for MMT UK as an
offshore surveyor and data processor
during an internship in 2014 and looks
forward to further surveys as his career
progresses.
He is Hon. Secretary of The Hydrographic
Society's South West Region.
He is a keen ultramarathon runner and
spends most of his spare-time training for
the next event.
luke.elliott@ukho.gov.uk
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/lse89
12th Annual General Meeting
of The Hydrographic Society UK
on Wednesday 16th March 2016
at 1300hrs (local time)
in South Gallery Room 13, ExCeL, London, E16 1XL
The AGM will take place during Oceanology International
A complimentary light lunch will be provided for members only
from 1230hrs. Prior booking is essential.
Visit the Society's website www.ths.org.uk for up-to-date details.
The Agenda, Proxy Form, accompanying notes and background
information for the AGM will be available to download from 17th
February 2016 at:
www.ths.org.uk/event_details.asp?v0=540
Please notify helen@ths.org.uk if you require a copy by post.
Nominations
Members are reminded that the period of office of the current holders
of the following posts will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 AGM.
Nominations are invited for any member who may wish to stand.
 Honorary Treasurer (current post-holder is eligible for re-election)
 Elected Director (one post-holder is eligible for re-election)
 Student & New Graduate Director (post currently vacant)
 International Director (current post-holder not seeking re-election)
If you are a fully paid-up member of The Hydrographic Society UK
(either an Individual/Retired/Student Member or the nominated
representative of a Corporate/Associate Corporate Member) you are
eligible to nominate or be nominated* for these posts.
Nominations must be received no later than 17th February 2016.
All nominations must be submitted using the Nomination Form which
can be downloaded, together with further information about the Call
for Nominations at www.ths.org.uk/event_details.asp?v0=540.
* Subject to membership category or Region
Please come along and join in, meet other Society members and
members of the Board, have your say on the future of the Society and
hear this year's Fellowships announced.
We hope to see you there.
For further information please contact helen@ths.org.uk

Object Detection Capabilities of the Bathymetry Systems Utilised for the 2015 CDS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Object Detection Capabilities of the Bathymetry Systems Utilised for the 2015 CDS

Similar to Object Detection Capabilities of the Bathymetry Systems Utilised for the 2015 CDS (20)

Object Detection Capabilities of the Bathymetry Systems Utilised for the 2015 CDS