NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC
Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004 Timco, Garry; Collins, Anne; Kubat, Ivana; Johnston, Michelle
For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous. https://doi.org/10.4224/12340913
NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC : https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=63393fa8-8d57-4546-8e89-9b9639caf942 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=63393fa8-8d57-4546-8e89-9b9639caf942
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at [email protected]. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à [email protected].
TP 14097 E
Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004
G.W. Timco, A. Collins, I. Kubat, and M. Johnston
Technical Report CHC-TR-033
March 2005
TP 14097 E
Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004
G.W. Timco, A. Collins, I. Kubat, & M. Johnston Canadian Hydraulics Centre National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0R6 Canada
Prepared for: Transport Canada Design, Equipment & Boating Safety Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Technical Report CHC-TR-033
March 2005
CHC-TR-033 Page 1
ABSTRACT
During the summers of 2002, 2003 and 2004, a data collection program was carried out onboard six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers. Information was collected on the ice conditions (ice regimes) and the stage of melting (decay) of the ice. In total, 345 ice regimes were documented and photographed. Based on this information, the severity of the ice regimes were evaluated in terms of the Canadian Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System. This report provides a description of the data collection program for the full three years and an overview of the results.
RÉSUMÉ
Un programme de collecte de données sur le terrain à bord de six brise-glaces de la Garde côtière canadienne a été conçu et exécuté pendant l’été de 2002, 2003 et 2004. On a recueilli de l’information sur l’état des glaces (régimes de glaces) et le stade de fonte (décroissance). Au total, 345 régimes de glaces ont été documentés et photographiés. Basé sur l’information recueillie, l’état des régimes de glaces a été évaluée en terme du Système des régimes de glaces pour la navigation dans l'Arctique. Ce rapport présente une description du programme de collecte de données et une vue d’ensemble des résultats.
CHC-TR-033 Page 2
CHC-TR-033 Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... 1 RÉSUMÉ ...... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 4 LIST OF TABLES...... 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 2.0 FIELD BOOKS...... 12 2.1 Data Analysis...... 14 3.0 CCGS LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT ...... 17 4.0 CCGS TERRY FOX...... 25 5.0 CCGS HENRY LARSEN...... 32 6.0 CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS...... 39 7.0 CCGS PIERRE RADISSON ...... 47 8.0 CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER...... 56 9.0 GENERAL ANALYSIS ...... 64 9.1 Calculating the Ice Numeral ...... 64 9.2 Ice Numeral and Vessel Damage...... 66 9.3 CCG Comments on the Ice Numeral ...... 66 9.4 Ice Numeral and Vessel Speed ...... 67 9.5 Ground-Truthing of CIS Ice Charts ...... 67 9.6 Ice Numerals from the CIS Charts...... 70 10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 72 11.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 74 12.0 REFERENCES ...... 74
APPENDIX A – Summary of Observations Transport Canada Publication Form
CHC-TR-033 Page 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Page from the Field Book for the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent ...... 13 Figure 2: Location of the data collection for each of the icebreakers during the summer collection program during 2002 to 2004...... 14 Figure 3: Pie chart showing the number of events recorded by each of the six CCG icebreakers...... 15 Figure 4: Number of events for each of the six icebreakers for each year of the observation program...... 16 Figure 5: Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 19 Figure 6: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 19 Figure 7: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent. The number indicates the Damage Potential Number...... 20 Figure 8: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent comparing the results for each of the three years of observations...... 20 Figure 9: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.- Laurent...... 21 Figure 10: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 4/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.- Laurent ...... 21 Figure 11: Ice regime with 1/10 TFY and 8/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.- Laurent ...... 22 Figure 12: Ice regime with 7/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St- Laurent...... 22 Figure 13: Ice regime with 3/10 N and 6/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St- Laurent...... 23 Figure 14: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY and 5/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 23 Figure 15: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY and 5/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent...... 24 Figure 16: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 4/10 G, 4/10 GW ice observed from the Louis S. St- Laurent...... 24 Figure 17: Damage potential number versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox...... 26 Figure 18: Photograph of the ice regime (2/10 MFY, 3/10TFY & 3/10 ridged MY ice) rated as having a high potential for damage for the Terry Fox. Note that the ponding makes identification of the ice types difficult...... 26 Figure 19: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Terry Fox...... 28 Figure 20: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number...... 28 Figure 21: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox comparing the results for each of the three years of observations...... 29 Figure 22: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 4/10 SY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 29 Figure 23: Ice regime with 1/10 FY, 2/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY, 3/10 SY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 30 Figure 24: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 8/10 TFY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 30
CHC-TR-033 Page 5
Figure 25: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 31 Figure 26: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 7/10 TFY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Terry Fox...... 31 Figure 27: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen..... 33 Figure 28: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Henry Larsen.... 34 Figure 29: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number...... 34 Figure 30 Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen comparing the results for each of the three years of observations...... 35 Figure 31: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 3/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.... 35 Figure 32: Ice regime with 2/10 TFY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen... 36 Figure 33: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 1/10 SY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen...... 36 Figure 34: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 2/10 SY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen...... 37 Figure 35: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 3/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen... 37 Figure 36: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 1/10 SY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen...... 38 Figure 37: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen... 38 Figure 38: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers. 40 Figure 39: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Des Groseilliers.42 Figure 40: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number for each event...... 42 Figure 41 Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers comparing the results for each of the three years of observations...... 43 Figure 42: Ice regime with 10/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers...... 43 Figure 43: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 5/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers...... 44 Figure 44: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.44 Figure 45: Ice regime with 5/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers...... 45 Figure 46: Ice regime with 9/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers...... 45 Figure 47: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 6/10 SY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers...... 46 Figure 48: Ice regime with 7/10 MFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers...... 46 Figure 49: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson.. 48 Figure 50: Photograph of 3/10 Thick First-year ice and 7/10 Multi-year ice. This ice regime was identified to have a high potential for damage for the Pierre Radisson. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a CAC4 vessel is -18...... 48 Figure 51: Photograph of 2/10 Grey-White ice, 4/10 Second-year ice and 4/10 Multi-year ice. This ice regime was identified to have a high potential for damage for the Pierre Radisson. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a CAC4 vessel is -16...... 49 Figure 52: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Pierre Radisson.. 50 Figure 53: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number for each event...... 51
CHC-TR-033 Page 6
Figure 54: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson comparing the results for each of the three years of observations. Note that this vessel was not in the Arctic in 2003...... 51 Figure 55: Ice regime with 9/10 decayed MFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson. 52 Figure 56: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 52 Figure 57: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 7/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 53 Figure 58: Ice regime with decayed 3/10 MFY and 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 53 Figure 59: Ice regime with 3/10 N, decayed 3/10 MFY, 1/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 54 Figure 60: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 7/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 54 Figure 61: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 2/10 G, 3/10 GW, 1/10 SY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 55 Figure 62: Ice regime with 7/10 N ice observed from the Pierre Radisson...... 55 Figure 63: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 57 Figure 64: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 59 Figure 65: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The numbers indicate the damage Potential Number for the events...... 59 Figure 66: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier comparing the results for each of the three years of observations...... 60 Figure 67: Ice regime with 6/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 60 Figure 68: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 61 Figure 69: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 6/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 61 Figure 70: Ice regime with 1/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 62 Figure 71: Ice regime with 2/10 TFY, 8/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 62 Figure 72: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY, 5/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 63 Figure 73: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 63 Figure 74: Pie charts showing the breakdown of the calculated Ice Numeral for each of the three years of the data collection program. Note the steady improvement each year...... 65 Figure 75: Pie charts showing the number of positive and negative Ice Numerals...... 66 Figure 76: Pie chart showing the break-down of the CCG evaluation of the adequacy of the Ice Numeral to represent the severity of the ice regime...... 67 Figure 77: Vessel speed versus the AIRSS Ice Numeral for all vessels during the data collection program...... 68
CHC-TR-033 Page 7
Figure 78: Histogram showing the difference between the total ice concentration from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions...... 69 Figure 79: Histogram showing the difference between the concentration of Thick First- year ice from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions...... 69 Figure 80: Histogram showing the difference between the concentration of Multi-year ice from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions. Note that the Charts underpredict the amount of Multi-year ice...... 70 Figure 81: Histogram showing the difference between the Ice Numerals estimated from the CIS Ice Charts with those observed from the Bridge. Note that using the CIS Charts overestimated the Ice Numerals...... 71
CHC-TR-033 Page 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Table of Ice Multipliers ...... 10 Table 2: Definition of the Damage Potential Number...... 15 Table 3: Information on the CCGS LOUIS S. ST.-LAURENT ...... 17 Table 4: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Louis S. St- Laurent...... 18 Table 5: Information on the CCGS TERRY FOX...... 25 Table 6: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Terry Fox ...... 27 Table 7: Information on the CCGS HENRY LARSEN...... 32 Table 8: Information on the CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS ...... 39 Table 9: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Des Groseilliers ...... 41 Table 10: Information on the CCGS PIERRE RADISSON ...... 47 Table 11: GGC Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the ...... 50 Table 12: Information on the CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER...... 56 Table 13: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier...... 58
CHC-TR-033 Page 9
Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers: 2002 to 2004
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASPPR) regulate navigation in Canadian waters north of 60°N latitude. These regulations include the date Table in Schedule VIII and the Shipping Safety Control Zones Order, made under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Both of these are combined to form the “Zone/Date System” matrix that gives entry and exit dates for various ship types and classes. It is a rigid system with little room for exceptions. It is based on the premise that nature consistently follows a regular pattern year after year.
Transport Canada, in consultation with stakeholders, has made extensive revisions to the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASPPR 1989; AIRSS 1996). The changes are designed to reduce the risk of structural damage in ships which could lead to the release of pollution into the environment, yet provide the necessary flexibility to shipowners by making use of actual ice conditions, as seen by the Master. In this new system, an "Ice Regime", which is a region of generally consistent ice conditions, is defined at the time the vessel enters that specific geographic region, or it is defined in advance for planning and design purposes. The Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS) is based on a simple arithmetic calculation that produces an “Ice Numeral” that combines the ice regime and the vessel’s ability to navigate safely in that region. The Ice Numeral (IN) is based on the quantity of hazardous ice with respect to the ASPPR classification of the vessel (see Table 1). The Ice Numeral is calculated from
IN = [Ca x IM a ] + [Cb x IM b ] + .... (1) where IN = Ice Numeral Ca = Concentration in tenths of ice type “a” IMa = Ice Multiplier for ice type “a” (from Table 1)
The term on the right hand side of the equation (a, b, c, etc.) is repeated for as many ice types as may be present, including open water. The values of the Ice Multipliers are adjusted to take into account the decay or ridging of the ice by adding or subtracting a correction of 1 to the multiplier, respectively (see Table 1). The Ice Numeral is therefore unique to the particular ice regime and ship operating within its boundaries. At the present time, there is only partial application of the ice regime system, exclusively outside of the “zone-date” system.
CHC-TR-033 Page 10
Table 1: Table of Ice Multipliers Vessel Class Ice Types Type CAC EDCBA 43 Old / Multi-Year Ice MY -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -1 Second-Year Ice SY-4-4-4-4-3-2 1 Thick First-Year Ice TFY -3 -3 -3 -2 -1 1 2 Medium First-Year Ice MFY -2 -2 -2 -1 1 2 2 Thin First-Year Ice - 2nd Stage -1 -1 -1 1222 FY Thin First-Year Ice - 1st Stage -1 -1 11222 Grey-White Ice GW-1111222 Grey Ice G1222222 Nilas, Ice Rind N2222222 New Ice N2222222 Brash 2222222 Open Water OW2222222
Ice Decay : If MY, SY, TFY or MFY ice has Thaw Holes or is Rotten, add 1 to the IM for that ice type Ice Roughness : If the total ice concentration is 6/10s or greater and more than one-third of an ice type is deformed, subtract 1 from the IM for the deformed ice type.
The ASPPR deals with vessels that are designed to operate in severe ice conditions for transit and icebreaking (CAC class) as well as vessels designed to operate in more moderate first-year ice conditions (Type vessels). The System determines whether a given vessel should proceed through that particular ice regime. If the Ice Numeral is negative, the ship is not allowed to proceed. However, if the Ice Numeral is zero or positive, the ship is allowed to proceed into the ice regime. Responsibility to plan the route, identify the ice, and carry out this numeric calculation rests with the Ice Navigator who could be the Master or Officer of the Watch. Due care and attention of the mariner, including avoidance of hazards, is vital to the successful application of the Ice Regime System. Authority by the Regulator (Pollution Prevention Officer) to direct ships in danger, or during an emergency, remains unchanged.
Credibility of the new system has wide implications, not only for ship safety and pollution prevention, but also in lowering ship insurance rates and predicting ship performance. Therefore, the Canadian Hydraulics Centre (CHC) of the National Research Council of Canada in Ottawa has worked with Transport Canada to assist them in developing a methodology for establishing a scientific basis for AIRSS (see e.g. Timco and Kubat 2002; Timco et al. 2004a). As part of this work, the CHC worked with the Canadian Ice Service (CIS) and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) to collect information onboard the CCG Icebreakers during three summers from 2002 to 2004. The results of the collection in 2002 are discussed in Timco et al., (2003a, 2003b), and those of 2003 are discussed in Timco et al. (2004b). A third year of data collection was carried out during the summer of 2004, and the results are included in this report, along with a comparison with the first two years of data collection.
The objectives of the work were: 1. Collect detailed information on the range of ice regimes encountered in the Canadian Arctic;
CHC-TR-033 Page 11
2. Obtain an evaluation of the potential damage severity of the ice regimes from the Commanding Officer or Officer of the Watch; 3. Obtain field data to evaluate the decay bonus that is part of the Regulatory Standards for the Ice Regime System; 4. Assist the CCG in understanding and using the Ice Regime System.
This data collection program was carried out on-board the six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers that are in the Arctic in the summer months. This was arranged through Gary Sidock and Jean Ouellet at the CCG Central and Arctic Region Offices in Sarnia. The icebreakers that were involved with this data collection program were: LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT TERRY FOX HENRY LARSEN DES GROSEILLIERS PIERRE RADISSON SIR WILFRID LAURIER
Field Books were developed and given to the Ice Service Specialists (ISS) of the Canadian Ice Service. The ISS personnel were onboard six Canadian Coast Guard Icebreakers throughout the summer navigation season in the Canadian Arctic. They used these Field Books and digital cameras to collect information on the ice regimes and the surface appearance of the ice. The information on the ice regimes was used in conjunction with input from the Commanding Officers of the icebreakers to assess the likelihood of damage to the vessels while in different ice conditions. In addition, the results from this program were used to validate a prototype product developed by the CIS to provide quantitative and qualitative information on the strength of first-year level ice in the Arctic (Gauthier et al., 2002; Langlois et al, 2003). This report discusses the procedure and results of this data collection program. Further, it compares the results of the field data programs for each of the three years.
CHC-TR-033 Page 12
2.0 FIELD BOOKS
Field books were developed to allow the collection of key information in a systematic format. Figure 1 shows a page from the Field Book for the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent.
The books were subdivided as follows: General Information – This section was used to collect general information on the observation including: Observation Number, Date, Time, Latitude, Longitude, Geographic Location, Vessel Speed, Visibility, Ice Roughness, Floe Size. Digital Photographs – The ISS were supplied with digital cameras and asked to photograph the observed ice regimes. Stage of Melt – The surface conditions were noted according to the following format: No Snow Melt, Snow Melt, Ponding, Drainage, or Rotten/Decayed. Ice Regime – Information on the ice regime was collected by noting the concentration of each Ice Type based on the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) definitions. The ISS were asked to define the ice regime as “the ice that the vessel will likely encounter”. Ice Numeral – The Ice Numeral was calculated based on the observed ice conditions and the Ice Multipliers that were supplied in the Field Books. Comments from the Officer of the Watch – A number of questions were asked of the Officer of the Watch to correlate the ice conditions to the potential for damage by the ice to the ship. These questions were slightly altered from the first year since there was some confusion regarding the evaluation in 2002. In some cases, the evaluation was made for a vessel under escort, and not for the icebreaker. Therefore, this was clarified to emphasize that the evaluation was to be made on the CCG vessel’s potential to be damaged by the ice regime. The questions were as follows:
1. How would you rank the severity (damage potential) of this ice regime for your icebreaker?
high potential to damage the (icebreaker name) potential to damage the (icebreaker name) not likely to damage the (icebreaker name) highly unlikely to damage the (icebreaker name)
2. Do you think that the Ice Numeral reflects the degree of severity of the ice conditions? Yes No If no, why does it not reflect the severity of the ice regime?
3. Did you alter your mode of operation with this ice regime? Yes No If Yes, how was it changed?
General Comments – Space was left for any comments from either the ISS personnel or Officer of the Watch.
CHC-TR-033 Page 13
These Field Books were deployed on six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers. It should be noted that the CCG vessels are not assigned a Vessel Class by Transport Canada. Therefore, it was necessary to assign to them a nominal Vessel Class in order to calculate the Ice Numeral. The Vessel Classes that were used were suggested by Andrew Kendrick of BMT Fleet Technology Ltd. based upon preliminary analysis of the vessels. It is important to understand that the Vessel Class used here is not necessarily the Vessel Class that would be assigned by Transport Canada for these types of vessels. This assignment would require a more thorough analysis.
General Information How would you rank the severity (damage potential) of this ice regime Observation # Location: for your icebreaker? Date: Vessel Speed (knots): Time: Visibility (n.mi):
Latitude: Ice Roughness (please circle): Low Medium High Longitude: Floe Size (m): Digital Photo File Name: Does the Ice Numeral reflect the degree of severity of the ice conditions? If no, why does it not reflect the severity of the ice regime? Stage of Melt (please circle)
Snow Cover Snow melt Ponding Drainage Rotten
use Decay Ice Multiplier if the Stage of Melt is Drainage or Rotten Did you alter your mode of operation with this ice regime?
Ice Regime If yes, how was it changed?
Ice Ice Multiplier Ice Type Concentration Type (IM) Contribution (please circle)
C Normal Decay* Ridged** C x IM MY x -1 0 -2 = SY x 120 = TFY x 231 = MFY x 231 = FY x 221 = GW x 221 = G x 221 = N x 221 = OW x 222 = Sum = Ice Numeral = *use Decay Ice Multiplier if the Stage of Melt is Drainage or Rotten **use Ridged Ice Multiplier if Ice Type is more than 30% ridged CO OOW ISS Figure 1: Page from the Field Book for the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent
The vessels sailed in different parts of the Canadian Arctic. Figure 2 shows the vicinity in which data were collected by each of the six vessels.
In the following sections, the results for each vessel are described. For this data, the Ice Numeral was calculated using the decay bonus as described in the AIRSS Regulatory Standards. For this, a bonus of +1 is applied to the Ice Multipliers for Multi-year ice, Second-year ice, Thick First-year ice and Medium First-year ice if the ice has thaw holes (i.e. drainage) or if the ice is rotten/decayed.
CHC-TR-033 Page 14
Figure 2: Location of the data collection for each of the icebreakers during the summer collection program during 2002 to 2004.
2.1 Data Analysis
After the field program, the data books were collected by the CIS and sent to the CHC. Since there was a considerable amount of data to analyze, the CHC developed a database to organize the data. When a Field Book was received at the CHC, the data contained in the books were extracted and entered into the database.
In the analysis, the data were analyzed independently for each vessel. The following information was investigated:
1. The Ice Numeral was compared to the Damage Potential to see if there was a correlation. For these plots, a “Damage Potential Number” was defined to reflect the four conditions specified in the Field Book as given in Table 2. 2. The Damage Potential was plotted versus the speed of the vessel. It is realized that the speed listed for the vessel would not necessarily be the maximum speed that the vessel could transit in the particular ice regimes since it could be escorting another vessel or there could be other factors to reduce the speed (operational
CHC-TR-033 Page 15
requirements, poor visibility, etc.). Nevertheless, this plot should illustrate that the vessel was travelling slower in lower Ice Numerals. 3. In a similar manner, the Ice Numeral was plotted versus the speed of the vessel.
Table 2: Definition of the Damage Potential Number Damage Potential Number Description 1 high potential for damage 2 potential for damage 3 not likely to damage vessel 4 highly unlikely to damage vessel
Three hundred and forty-five observations were made on ice regimes during the three year program. Figure 3 shows the number of events reported for each of the six icebreakers. Figure 4 shows the break-down of observations for each vessel for each of the three years of collection.
TERRY FOX 32 DES GROSEILLIERS SIR WILFRID LAURIER 78 48
HENRY LARSEN 16
59 PIERRE RADISSON 112 LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT
Figure 3: Pie chart showing the number of events recorded by each of the six CCG icebreakers.
CHC-TR-033 Page 16
60 57 54 52 2002 50 2003 43 2004 40
29 30 27
18 20 16 13 Number of Events 7 8 10 6 6 5 3 1 00 0 PIERRE DES LAURIER RADISSON LAURENT TERRY FOX TERRY SIR WILFRID SIR LOUIS S. S. ST- LOUIS GROSEILLIERS HENRY LARSEN HENRY Figure 4: Number of events for each of the six icebreakers for each year of the observation program.
CHC-TR-033 Page 17
3.0 CCGS LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT
The LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT is designated as a Heavy Gulf Icebreaker. It was built in 1969 in Montreal. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 3. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Louis S. St-Laurent was assigned as a CAC3 vessel. Captains M. Marsden, S. Klebert and A. McNeill were the Commanding Officers. R. Provost, J.-Y. Rancourt, D. Crosbie, S. Leger, S. Payment and R. Morrow were the ISS personnel onboard. This vessel collected information across a wide area of Arctic including the northwest passage and the Arctic Ocean (see Figure 2). One hundred and twelve observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.
Table 3: Information on the CCGS LOUIS S. ST.-LAURENT
CCGS LOUIS S. ST- LAURENT Official No: 328095 Type: Heavy Gulf Icebreaker Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Maritimes Home Port: Dartmouth, N.S. Call Sign: CGBN When Built: 1969 Builder: Canadian Vickers, Montreal, Qué. Modernized: 1988 - 1993 - Halifax Shipyard
Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 13 Ice Class: 100 A Crew: 33 MARPOL: Yes Total: 46 IMO: 6705937 Crewing Regime: Lay Day Available Berths: 53
Figure 5 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using the data from the Louis S. St-Laurent. For this vessel, three ice regimes were rated with a high potential for damage. These were (1) no ice but icebergs and heavy fog, ship speed of 14 knots, (2) 1/10 Thick First-year ice (decayed) and 2/10 ridged Multi-year ice, ship speed 12 knots, and (3) 3/10 Thick First-year ice (decayed) and 5/10 Multi-year ice (decayed), ship speed 14 knots. Even though these ice regimes had thick first-year and multi-year ice, they were in low concentration, so the Ice Numeral would be greater than zero for this vessel. However, at high speed the CCG indicated that this is a potentially dangerous ice regime. This situation is not covered properly with the Ice Regime System. Also, one ice regime
CHC-TR-033 Page 18
had an Ice Numeral of -10, yet the comments indicated that the regime had little potential to damage the vessel. Figure 6 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. The vessel speed for the negative Ice Numeral was discussed in the comments for the ice regime. Although the ice was multi-year ice, the ice thickness was only 1 to 1.5 m thick and the vessel could navigate with speeds up to 10 knots. Figure 7 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. The numbers on the graph indicate the damage severity number for the ice regime. The “x” indicates data where no Damage Potential Number was given. Figure 8 shows a comparison of the data collected during all three years from the Louis S. St-Laurent.
This vessel collected 112 observations and reported that in 8 cases the Ice Numeral did not accurately reflect the degree of severity of the ice regime. Table 4 provides information on these events with the reasons indicated.
Table 4: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Louis S. St- Laurent.
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Why Ice Numeral Not Representative Speed Knots IN # DP N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY The ice is w eak and porous yet show s no visible sign of decay on the surface. This type of ice has 000000010------0-103 been penetrated using 3 of 5 engines and only 50% pow er on the starboard shaft. 30000006 - - - - -Y 5-43Could manouver around floes Ridges controlling direction of the ship and slow ing 000001000 - - -Y - - 0103 her dow n to a stop. Restrictive to our progress 000001000 ------2203Example w here you can have 7/10 open w ater + 3/10 TFY and have the same IN value Restrictive to our progress 000001000 ------0203Example w here you can have 7/10 open w ater + 3/10 TFY and have the same IN value 30060000 ------10203 17200000 ------7.7204 Because open w ater has a higher potential 00008100Y- - - - - 14294 (hazard)
Samples of ice regimes identified on the Louis S. St-Laurent are given in Figure 9 through Figure 16.
CHC-TR-033 Page 19
5 LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT
2002 4 2003 2004
3
2
Damage Potential Number 1 3TFY(D), 5MY(D) Speed 14 kts No ice. 1TFY(D), 2MY(R) icebergs, fog Speed 12 kts Speed 14 kts 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 5: Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent.
20 LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT 2002 2003 No ice. 3TFY(D), 5MY(D) icebergs, fog 2004 Ice Numeral = 13 Ice Numeral = 20 15
10 1TFY(D), 2MY(R) Ice Numeral = 13
Vessel speed(knots) 5
0 012345 Damage Potential Number
Figure 6: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Louis S. St-Laurent.
CHC-TR-033 Page 20
20 LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT 18 3 4 4 16 4 43 3444333 4 14 1 124 4 4 3 12 2 1 3 3 3 34 10 3 3 443 4 X3 4 4 XX3 4 3 4 X 8 2 34 4 3 3 34 4 4 2 3 4 34 6 2 4 X4 4 3433 4
Vessel Speed(knots) 3 334 2 4 3 4 2 4 3 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 7: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent. The number indicates the Damage Potential Number.
20 LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT 3TFY(D), 5MY(D) No ice. Damage icebergs, fog Potential = 1 Damage 2002 Potential = 1 2003 15 1TFY(D), 2MY(R) 2004 Damage Potential = 1
10
Vessel speed(knots) 5
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 8: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Louis S. St-Laurent comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.
CHC-TR-033 Page 21
Figure 9: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.- Laurent.
Figure 10: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 4/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.- Laurent
CHC-TR-033 Page 22
Figure 11: Ice regime with 1/10 TFY and 8/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St.-Laurent
Figure 12: Ice regime with 7/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.
CHC-TR-033 Page 23
Figure 13: Ice regime with 3/10 N and 6/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St- Laurent.
Figure 14: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY and 5/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.
CHC-TR-033 Page 24
Figure 15: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY and 5/10 MY ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.
Figure 16: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 4/10 G, 4/10 GW ice observed from the Louis S. St-Laurent.
CHC-TR-033 Page 25
4.0 CCGS TERRY FOX
The TERRY FOX was built in 1983 and is designated as a Heavy Gulf Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 5. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Terry Fox was assigned as a CAC3 vessel. Captains G. Barry, L. Meisner and M. Champagne were the Commanding Officers. G. Campbell, N. Kulbaski and R. Morrow were the ISS personnel onboard. Figure 2 shows the locations of the vessel during the data collection program. Data were collected over a wide area including Lancaster Sound and Hudson Bay. It should be noted that the Terry Fox did not travel to the Arctic during the summer of 2004, so there is only data from 2002 and 2003. Thirty- two observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A. Table 5: Information on the CCGS TERRY FOX
CCGS TERRY FOX Official No: 803579 Type: Heavy Gulf Icebreaker / Suppy Tug Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Maritimes Home Port: Dartmouth, N.S. Call Sign: CGTF When Built: 1983 Builder: Burrard Yarrows Corporation, Vancouver, B.C. Modernized:
Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 10 Ice Class: Arctic Class 4 Crew: 14 MARPOL: Yes Total: 24 IMO: 8127799 Crewing Regime: Lay Day Available Berths: 10
Figure 17 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Terry Fox. There is a significant difference between the data from 2002 and 2003. In the first year of data collection, virtually all of the ice regimes were assessed to have the potential to damage the vessel. There was one regime that was identified as having a high potential for damage. It contained 2/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY and 3/10 ridged MY ice. Figure 18 shows a photograph of the ice regime. Note that there was considerable ponding on the ice making the identification of the ice types difficult. The vessel speed in this ice regime was 5 knots. In the second year (2003), there were no ice regimes identified with a high potential for damaging the vessel. This discrepancy could reflect the changes that were
CHC-TR-033 Page 26
made in the data collection book between 2002 and 2003. The question regarding damage potential was intended to ask if the ice regime could damage the icebreaker (the Terry Fox in this case). However, the response indicates that the intent of the question was whether or not this ice had potential to damage any vessel. In the second and third year, this question was clarified to indicate that the question of damage potential related to the icebreaker. This could explain the difference between the responses in the two years.
5 TERRY FOX
2002 4 2003
3
2
Damage Potential Number 1 2MFY, 3TFY, 3MY(R) Speed 5 kts
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 17: Damage potential number versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox.
Figure 18: Photograph of the ice regime (2/10 MFY, 3/10TFY & 3/10 ridged MY ice) rated as having a high potential for damage for the Terry Fox. Note that the ponding makes identification of the ice types difficult.
CHC-TR-033 Page 27
Figure 19 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is no particular trend in the data. The results reflect the inconsistency in reporting the DP number for 2002 and 2003. Figure 20 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. Figure 21 shows a comparison of the data from 2002 and 2003. There were considerably more data points from the data collection program in 2002. There were no data events for 2004.
This vessel collected 32 observations and reported that in 12 cases the Ice Numeral did not accurately reflect the degree of severity of the ice regime. Table 6 provides information on these events with the reasons indicated. This is a fairly high percentage of events. Part of the reason may reflect the confusion in the first year of data collection. However, several of the observations provide good insight – for example, the inconsistency of having a decay first-year ice with a higher Ice Multiplier than Open Water, and the lack of consideration for flow size in the Ice Numeral.
Figure 22 to Figure 26 show photographs of some of the ice regimes observed from the Terry Fox.
Table 6: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Terry Fox
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Why Ice Num e r al Not Re pr e s e ntative Speed IN # DP N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY How can thick first year give a numerical value the 00002402 - - - - -Y 8122 same as open w ater? Cargo ship in escort could not possibly break 00000802 ------8142 through on ow n. Giant floe (> 10 miles) to cross. How can thick first year give the same numerical 00000701 - - - - -Y 6162 value as open w ater? How can first year have the same numerical value 00001200 - - -Y - - 14172 as open w ater? 00102301Y -YY - - 4172System too vague - conditions change too quick. Even though this numeral is higher than Observation #18 (IN = 11), the ice encountered 00000701Y - -Y - - 10172w as harder because of thicker ridges and solid MY floes. Also, vast TFY floes w ere hard to break because of their inertia. Would be more reflective if it considered ridging 00000604Y -Y - - - 318 w hich slow ed progress a few times in this case. How can thick first year have the same numerical 50000300 ------13202 value as open w ater? 00004600 ------5203This high number (IN) does not make sense. 00002502Y -Y - - - 4232Does not reflect ice conditions In comparison to last ops. ice condition value only increased by 1 but progress is considerably 00012430YY - - - - 3264 slow er. Might be better if ice numeral w ould differentiate betw een drainage and rotten. Ice numeral does not consider floe size w hich in 00022500Y - - - - - 7274this instance is small making it easier to transit the ice.
CHC-TR-033 Page 28
20 TERRY FOX 2002 2003
15
10
2MFY, 3TFY, 3MY(R) Ice Numeral = 8
Vessel speed (knots) speed Vessel 5
0 012345 Damage Potential Number
Figure 19: Vessel speed versus the damage potential for the Terry Fox.
20 TERRY FOX 18 16
14 2 2 2 12 2 3 10 2 22 2 X 22
8 2 2 X 4 6 2 2
Vessel Speed(knots) 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 4 X 34 2 2 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 20: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number.
CHC-TR-033 Page 29
20 TERRY FOX 2002 2003
15
10
Vessel speed(knots) 5
2MFY, 3TFY, 3MY(R) Damage Potential = 1
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 21: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Terry Fox comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.
Figure 22: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 4/10 SY ice observed from the Terry Fox.
CHC-TR-033 Page 30
Figure 23: Ice regime with 1/10 FY, 2/10 MFY, 4/10 TFY, 3/10 SY ice observed from the Terry Fox.
Figure 24: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 8/10 TFY ice observed from the Terry Fox.
CHC-TR-033 Page 31
Figure 25: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Terry Fox.
Figure 26: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 7/10 TFY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Terry Fox.
CHC-TR-033 Page 32
5.0 CCGS HENRY LARSEN
The HENRY LARSEN was built in 1987 and is designated as a Medium Gulf Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 7. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Henry Larsen was assigned as a CAC3 vessel. Captains J. Broderick and J. Vanthiel were the Commanding Officers. S. Payment, C. Stock and L. Theriault were the ISS personnel onboard. Figure 2 shows the locations of the vessel during the data collection timeframe. Observations were made mostly along the east coast and near Resolute in geographic regions that include Frobisher Bay, North Bay (Hudson Strait), Foxe Basin, Cape Christian and Resolute. Sixteen observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.
Table 7: Information on the CCGS HENRY LARSEN
CCGS HENRY LARSEN Official No: 808731 Type: Medium Gulf - River Icebreaker Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Newfoundland Home Port: St. John's, Nfld. Call Sign: CGHL When Built: 1987 Builder: Versatile Pacific Shipyards Inc., Vancouver, B.C. Modernized:
Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 11 Ice Class: Arctic Class 4 Crew: 20 MARPOL: Yes Total: 31 IMO: 8409329 Crewing Regime: Lay Day Available Berths: 40
Figure 27 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Henry Larsen. The data showed two different aspects, especially in 2002. Three of the observations from one crew indicated that the ice regimes identified were unlikely to cause damage to the vessel. The second set (recorded by a different crew) indicated that all four observations had potential to damage the vessel. In all cases, the ice regimes were quite light, typically 1/10 to 3/10 decayed Thick First-year ice. Similar to the observations on the Terry Fox, there could have been confusion regarding the damage question. In 2003, there were a number of ice regimes that were rated as having the potential to cause damage to the vessel. These ice regimes consisted of a mixture of thick
CHC-TR-033 Page 33
first-year ice and old ice. There were no events identified with a high damage potential in 2004. Figure 28 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is no trend in the data, with speeds in the range of 5 to 10 knots. Figure 29 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. No negative Ice Numerals were calculated for this vessel. Figure 30 shows a comparison of the ice regimes events collected in all three years of the measurement program on the Henry Larsen.
The Henry Larsen did not list any events in which they felt that the Ice Numeral did not adequately reflect the degree of severity of the ice regime.
Figure 31 to Figure 37 show some examples of the ice regimes observed from the Henry Larsen.
5 HENRY LARSEN
2002 4 2003 2004
3
2
Damage Potential Number Potential Damage 1
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 27: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen.
CHC-TR-033 Page 34
20 HENRY LARSEN 2002 2003 2004 15
10
Vessel speed(knots) 5
0 012345 Damage Potential Number
Figure 28: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Henry Larsen.
20 HENRY LARSEN 18 16 14 12 10 2 2 4 8 2 2 X 22 2 6 4 4 2 2 Vessel Speed(knots) 2 4
2 3 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 29: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number.
CHC-TR-033 Page 35
20 HENRY LARSEN 2002 2003 2004 15
10
Vessel speed(knots) 5
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 30 Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Henry Larsen comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.
Figure 31: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 3/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.
CHC-TR-033 Page 36
Figure 32: Ice regime with 2/10 TFY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.
Figure 33: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 1/10 SY, 2/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.
CHC-TR-033 Page 37
Figure 34: Ice regime with 6/10 TFY, 2/10 SY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.
Figure 35: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 3/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.
CHC-TR-033 Page 38
Figure 36: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY, 1/10 SY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.
Figure 37: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Henry Larsen.
CHC-TR-033 Page 39
6.0 CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS
The DES GROSEILLIERS was built in 1982 and is designated as a Medium Gulf Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 8. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Des Groseilliers was assigned as a CAC4 vessel. Captains G. Tremblay, R. Dubois and S. Bertrand were the Commanding Officers. B. Simard, S. Leger, E. Vaillant and F. Guay were the ISS personnel onboard. Figure 2 shows the route for the vessel during the data collection program. This vessel collected data in the eastern Arctic including the High Arctic islands. Seventy-eight observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.
Table 8: Information on the CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS
CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS Official No: 802160 Type: Medium Gulf - River Icebreaker Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Laurentian Home Port: Québec, Qué. Call Sign: CGDX When Built: 1982 Builder: Port Weller Dockyard, St. Catherines, Ont. Modernized:
Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 12 Ice Class: Crew: 26 MARPOL: Total: 38 IMO: Crewing Regime: Conventional Available Berths: 26
Figure 38 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using the data from the Des Groseilliers. None of the ice regimes were identified to have a high potential to damage this vessel although nine events in 2002 and ten events in 2004 were identified to have a potential for damage (Damage Potential = 2). Two of these had a negative Ice Numeral whereas the other seven had a positive Ice Numeral. Further, there were a number of ice regimes that had a negative Ice Numeral yet were not deemed to be hazardous to the Des Groseilliers. A large number of these events occurred when the vessel traversed decayed Second-year ice, sometimes at speeds up to 15 knots. A
CHC-TR-033 Page 40
discussion with the Captain of the vessel during these observations provided additional insight. In this situation, the second-year ice was highly rotten and not very thick. This allowed the vessel to proceed at a high speed without a high damage probability. Although the decay of second-year ice is considered, its thickness is not considered. In this case, it made a significant difference to the ice regime and the safety of the vessel.
Figure 39 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel for the Des Groseilliers. There is no clear trend in the data. Figure 40 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel with the Damage Number indicated. Figure 41 shows a comparison of the data collected in all three years of the data collection programs.
Seventy–eight observations were made on the Des Groseilliers and in twenty cases, the CCG thought that the Ice Numeral did not adequately reflect the ice regime. They point out that roughness of small floes does not pose a threat to navigation. Further, they note the pressure is not taken into account1. They also comment that a high Ice Numeral may give a false sense of security since the ice regime may still pose some threat to damage the vessel. Also, the presence of trace amounts of multi-year ice may pose a threat and this is not taken into account in AIRSS.
Figure 42 to Figure 48 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Des Groseilliers.
5 DES GROSEILLIERS
2002 4 2003 2004
3
2
Damage Potential Number Potential Damage 1
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 38: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers.
1 Pressure is not considered in AIRSS since it affects the operation of the vessel, but is not usually a threat to its safety.
CHC-TR-033 Page 41
Table 9: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Des Groseilliers
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Why Ice Num e r al Not Re pr e s e ntative Speed IN # DP N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY The height of the floes should be taken into account. Pressure should also be included in the calculations. 00002006-----Y 3-163 Ridges on the small floes do not pose a problem to navigation, how ever they influence IN calculation. 00000271------15-153 The smallest ice numeral is found here, yet the 00000433 - - - -Y - 4-142conditions are better that those of observation 10, because of the size of the floes. 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 - - - Y - - 6 -10 3 Too negative 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 Y Y - - - - 10 -7 3 Average vessel speed of 10 knts. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 - Y - - - - 8 -7 3 Going full ahead. Due to the TFY w hich transformes itself into SY 12000033------7-72on the first of October. The numeral thus changes from 0 to -9 The vessel proceeded at 6 knots full ahead w ith 00000280YY - - - -6.5-42 5 motors, w ithout any major problems. Advanced stage of melting - no pressure on 00000342YY - - - - 9-24 vessel. 00000604Y----- 203Ice solider (less rotten) 00000360YY - - - - 1424 Vessel w ent full ahead into floes, and reduced 00000260YY - - - -8.523 speed after entering them. 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 Y Y - - - - 10 2 3 Decayed ice - easy progress 00000701Y-YY - - 7 93IN is too low. An ice numeral of 11 gives a - sense of 00000111YY - - - - 14122 security. The high IN w ould indicate that there is no risk of 00000101------10142 damage. 00000200------4183Should be higher 00000000------12204 IN is too high, indicating that conditions are safer 00000400Y----- 8202 than is actually the case. Because of traces of old ice around the FY and 00007000Y-----12274 SY floes.
CHC-TR-033 Page 42
20 DES GROSEILLIERS 2002 2003 2004 15
10
Vessel speed(knots) 5
0 012345 Damage Potential Number
Figure 39: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Des Groseilliers.
20 DES GROSEILLIERS 18 16 3 2 14 4 2 3 4 12 3 4 4 4 34 4 4 3 4 10 3 3 2 4 2 3 4 2 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 42 8 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 6 3 X 2 2 4 34 X 3 4
Vessel Speed(knots) 2 3 2 3 X2 3 4 3 X 3 X X4 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 0 3 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 40: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number for each event.
CHC-TR-033 Page 43
20 DES GROSEILLIERS 2002 2003 2004 15
10
Vessel speed(knots) 5
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 41 Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Des Groseilliers comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.
Figure 42: Ice regime with 10/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.
CHC-TR-033 Page 44
Figure 43: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 5/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.
Figure 44: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.
CHC-TR-033 Page 45
Figure 45: Ice regime with 5/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.
Figure 46: Ice regime with 9/10 TFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.
CHC-TR-033 Page 46
Figure 47: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 6/10 SY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.
Figure 48: Ice regime with 7/10 MFY ice observed from the Des Groseilliers.
CHC-TR-033 Page 47
7.0 CCGS PIERRE RADISSON
The PIERRE RADISSON was built in 1978 and is designated as a Medium Gulf Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 10. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Pierre Radisson was assigned as a CAC4 vessel. Captains M. Bourdeau and S. Brûlé were the Commanding Officers. R. Boisvert, F. Guay, L. Theriault, R. Prevost and J.-Y. Rancourt were the ISS personnel onboard. This vessel collected data across a wide region of the Arctic (see Figure 2). Note, however, that no information on the ice regimes was submitted for this vessel for year 2003 since it was not in the Arctic that summer. Fifty-nine observations were made from this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.
Table 10: Information on the CCGS PIERRE RADISSON
CCGS PIERRE RADISSON Official No: 383326 Type: Medium Gulf - River Icebreaker Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Laurentian Home Port: Québec, Qué. Call Sign: CGSB When Built: 1978 Builder: Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd, North Vancouver, B.C. Modernized: 1995, 1996, & 1997
Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 12 Ice Class: 100 A Crew: 26 MARPOL: Yes Total: 38 IMO: 7510834 Crewing Regime: Conventional Available Berths: 26
Figure 49 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using data from the Pierre Radisson. In 2002, two ice regimes were identified to have a high potential for damage. The first ice regime consisted of 3/10 Thick First-year ice and 7/10 Multi-year ice (see Figure 50). The Ice Numeral for this regime was –18. The speed of the Radisson was 5 knots in this ice. The second ice regime consisted of 2/10 Grey-White ice, 4/10 Second- year ice and 4/10 Multi-year ice (Figure 51). The Ice Numeral was –16. The speed of the Radisson in this ice regime was 4 knots. In 2004, no events were identified that had a potential to damage the vessel.
CHC-TR-033 Page 48
5 PIERRE RADISSON
2002 4 2004
3
2
2GW, 4SY, 4MY
Damage Potential Number 1 Speed 4 kts
3TFY, 7MY Speed 5 kts 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 49: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson.
Figure 50: Photograph of 3/10 Thick First-year ice and 7/10 Multi-year ice. This ice regime was identified to have a high potential for damage for the Pierre Radisson. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a CAC4 vessel is -18.
CHC-TR-033 Page 49
Figure 51: Photograph of 2/10 Grey-White ice, 4/10 Second-year ice and 4/10 Multi-year ice. This ice regime was identified to have a high potential for damage for the Pierre Radisson. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a CAC4 vessel is -16.
The Pierre Radisson reported the ice regime with the most negative Ice Numeral. The vessel was in heavily ridged ice with 3/10 MY, 4/10 SY and 3/10 TFY conditions. The AIRSS Ice Numeral for this regime is -24. The CCG commented that they felt that the Ice Numeral reflected the severity of the ice regime. This event is not plotted on the graphs since the Radisson was stopped (speed = 0) in these ice conditions. The ISS commented that they had never seen anything so ridged before.
Figure 52 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is a trend of decreasing speed as the perceived damage potential increased (i.e. the DP number gets smaller). This trend makes physical sense. Figure 53 and Figure 54 show the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel with the Damage Potential Number and year of the observations. Note that there were no data collected in 2003. The graphs show lower speeds for negative Ice Numerals.
Data from the Pierre Radisson were very consistent. The identification of the ice regimes and their damage potential were reflected in the vessel speed and the assessment of the ice regimes.
Fifty-nine observations were reported from the Pierre Radisson and in seven cases, the CCG commented that the Ice Numeral did not adequately describe the severity of the ice regime. Table 11 provides the details. The CCG noted that the shape of the floes (e.g.
CHC-TR-033 Page 50
strips) should be included in the determination of the Ice Numeral and that the same IN was determined for two conditions where one was a more severe condition. They also noted the situation similar to that reported by the Louis S. St-Laurent that low concentration of Old Ice can be hazardous.
Figure 55 to Figure 62 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Pierre Radisson.
Table 11: GGC Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Pierre Radisson
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Speed IN DP # Why Ice Numeral Not Representative N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY Knots The code poorly reflects the ice conditions, according to the Y 00 0 0 0 6 2 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 1 3Navigation Officer. The ice code should be more detailed to allow different coding. Y 00 0 0 5 4 0 1 ------511 3 Very solid old ice - only 1/10. Y 00 0 0 0 1 0 1 - - - Y - Y 1312 4 Since there are strips of 9/10 in wich the IN should be harsher Y 00 0 0 0 4 0 0 ------5.616 3 Same number as obs 008 but tougher condition Y 02 8 0 0 0 0 0 ------1020 4 Y 10 0 0 0 5 0 0 Y - - - - - 820 4 Y 20 0 0 0 8 0 0 Y - - - - - 820 3
20 PIERRE RADISSON
2002 15 2004
10
3TFY, 7MY Vessel speed(knots) 5 Ice Numeral = -18
2GW, 4SY, 4MY Ice Numeral = -16 0 012345 Damage Potential Number
Figure 52: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Pierre Radisson.
CHC-TR-033 Page 51
20 PIERRE RADISSON 18
16 4 4 14 4 12 4 4 10 2 34 34 4 8 3 34 43 4 4 4 6 4 3 3 3 4
Vessel Speed(knots) 21 2 2 34 3 4 3 2 4 1 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 53: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson. The numbers indicate the Damage Potential Number for each event.
20 PIERRE RADISSON
2002 15 2004
10 3TFY, 7MY Damage Potential = 1
Vessel speed(knots) 5
2GW, 4SY, 4MY Damage Potential = 1 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 54: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Pierre Radisson comparing the results for each of the three years of observations. Note that this vessel was not in the Arctic in 2003.
CHC-TR-033 Page 52
Figure 55: Ice regime with 9/10 decayed MFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.
Figure 56: Ice regime with 4/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.
CHC-TR-033 Page 53
Figure 57: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 7/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.
Figure 58: Ice regime with decayed 3/10 MFY and 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.
CHC-TR-033 Page 54
Figure 59: Ice regime with 3/10 N, decayed 3/10 MFY, 1/10 TFY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.
Figure 60: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY and 7/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.
CHC-TR-033 Page 55
Figure 61: Ice regime with 1/10 N, 2/10 G, 3/10 GW, 1/10 SY and 1/10 MY ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.
Figure 62: Ice regime with 7/10 N ice observed from the Pierre Radisson.
CHC-TR-033 Page 56
8.0 CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER
The SIR WILFRID LAURIER was built in 1986 and is designated as a Light Icebreaker. Some salient details of this icebreaker are given in Table 12. For the purposes of this data collection program, the Sir Wilfrid Laurier was assigned as a Type A vessel in 2002, and a CAC4 vessel in 2003 and 2004. Captains N. Thomas and M. Taylor were the Commanding Officers. S. Thompson, C. Stock, R. Hilchie, C. Daigle and B. Simard were the ISS personnel onboard. Figure 2 shows the location for the vessel during the data collection timeframe. Observations were made along the northwest coast of Canada and off Alaska including Pte. Barrow, Prudhoe Bay, Barter Island, Horton River, Franklin Bay, Wise Bay, Cape Lyon, James Ross Strait, Southern Larsen Sound, Beaufort Sea, Baillie Islands, Mackenzie Bay and Alaskan North Shore. Forty-eight observations were recorded by this vessel. The details of each event are presented in Appendix A.
Table 12: Information on the CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER
CCGS SIR WILFRID LAURIER Official No: 807038 Type: Light Icebreaker - Major Navaids Tender Port of Ottawa Registry: Region: Pacific Home Port: Victoria, B.C. Call Sign: CGJK When Built: 1986 Builder: Canadian Shipbuilding, Collingwood, Ont. Modernized:
Certificates Complement Class of Voyage: Home Trade I Officers: 10 Ice Class: Arctic Class 2 Crew: 16 MARPOL: Yes Total: 26 IMO: 8320456 Crewing Regime: Lay Day Available Berths: 25
Figure 63 shows the Damage Potential versus the Ice Numeral using the data from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In 2002, there were a number of the observed ice regimes not evaluated in terms of their damage potential, but those that were evaluated were quite consistent. There was one ice regime that was identified as having a high potential for damage for this vessel. That ice regime consisted of 9/10 ridged First-year ice with ponding. The Ice Numeral for this ice regime for a Type A vessel is –16. The speed of the vessel was
CHC-TR-033 Page 57
2 knots. In 2003, there were a number of ice regimes with a negative Ice Numeral, but only a few of those were identified as having potential for damaging the icebreaker. These regimes typically had 4/10 to 6/10 Multi-year ice in them. In 2004, one ice regime was identified as having a high potential for vessel damage. This regime consisted of 1/10s Thick First-year ice and 5/10s rotten Multi-year ice. The vessel traversed this ice regime at a speed of 5 knots. Figure 64 shows the Damage Potential versus the speed of the vessel. There is a trend of lower speeds in ice regimes that are identified as having a high damage potential. Figure 65 shows the Ice Numeral versus the speed of the vessel. Lower speeds (below 5 knots) were always used in the ice regimes that had negative Ice Numerals. Figure 66 shows a comparison of data collected over all three years. The data from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier were quite consistent every year. The data from the vessel using a CAC4 designation was more consistent than those using the Type A designation.
Forty-eight observations were made on the Sir Wilfrid Laurier and in nineteen cases, the CCG did not feel that the Ice Numeral adequately reflected the degree of severity of the ice regime. Table 13 lists these observations. Many comments relate to a low Ice Numeral yet the vessel was making good progress. In some cases it reflects the difference between the Type A and CAC4 designation of the vessel during the program. The CCG also commented on the inadequacy of taking into account the ice decay and floe size since these significantly influence the manoeuvrability of the vessel. They also noted the potential for damage to this vessel if a multi-year floe inadvertently hit the vessels shoulder at high speed.
Figure 67 to Figure 73 show some of the ice regimes observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
5 SIR WILFRID LAURIER
2002 4 2003 2004
3
2
1TFY, 5MY(R) Speed 5 kts
Damage Potential Number 1
9TFY(R) Speed 2 kts 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 63: Damage Potential Number versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
CHC-TR-033 Page 58
Table 13: CCG Comments on the Suitability of the Ice Numeral from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged Why Ice Numeral Not Representative Speed Knots IN # DP N G GW FY MFY TFY SY MY FY SY MY FY SY MY 1/10 OW, & 2/10 rotted TFY allow ed room to maneuver ship in "softer areas". Risk of damage 00000225Y------132 is in view of possibility of bouncing off 1 floe & laterally into a M.Y. floe on the cheeks of the V/L. Was w orkable at 5 kn, w ere able to break & 00000208Y-Y - - - 2-122 maneuver 00000034 ------4-122Silly low number for the actual ice conditions No small 1st year bits clogging track for tug - made 00000108Y-Y - - -3.5-123better progress than obs 10 though ice floes larger (M.Y.) While Laurier able to make 5 kn + (?), tug Korts 00000208Y-Y - - - 2-123nozzles plugged w ith 1st yr bits of ice, progress slow . When compared to previous example, major change is floe size. This ice numeral (-10) indicates less severe conditions than the (-13) & 00000306Y------102 yet because of Laurier's ability to navigate around smaller floes, the -13 is easier than the -10 regime. (see below ) Major decay in many areas betw een the larger 00000306Y-Y - - -3.75-43 floes. Low number means nothing as to ice severity. 10000023 ------0-34Was escorting 2 tugs & 8 barges at the time at 5.5 knots! 00000023 ------5-33Numbers too low - means nothing Low number mean nothing as to ice conditions. 00000032 ------5.1-23Was escorting 2 tugs & 8 barges (no ice class) at the time 00000103Y- - - -Y 6 24V/L speed 8-10 knots, 2 M.E. Rotten ice except for some old floes sp 3 - 5.5 kn. 00002305Y-Y - - - 4 24 average 5 kn. Does not impede ops at all - artificial low number 50000022 ------3 23 means nothing TFY ice w as definitely somew hat decayed, but not to the extent that the "decay" bonus could be 00000702Y- - - - - 4103"legally" used. Slight damage potential @ higher speeds if MY w as hit in a lateral blow on shoulders. 00001600Y- -Y - - 5143Not near operational limit of vessel Not enough w eighting for ridging w rong w t for 00001600Y- -Y - - 2143 melt/decay. 00000001 - - - - -Y6.5144Made good speed, no chance of damage 00002400Y- -Y - - 2163Ice rotten - mostly ridges - soft 00000010 ------6164
CHC-TR-033 Page 59
20 SIR WILFRID LAURIER 2002 2003 2004 15
10
1TFY, 5MY(R) Ice Numeral = -11
Vessel speed(knots) 5
9TFY(R) Ice Numeral = -16 0 012345 Damage Potential Number
Figure 64: Vessel speed versus the Damage Potential Number for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
20 SIR WILFRID LAURIER 18 16
14 4
12 4
10 3 3 8 X 4 4 4 34 4 6 3 Vessel Speed (knots) Speed Vessel 1 3 3 XXX 34 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 1 32 3 3 3 0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 65: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The numbers indicate the damage Potential Number for the events.
CHC-TR-033 Page 60
20 SIR WILFRID LAURIER 2002 2003 2004 15
10 1TFY, 5MY(R) Damage Potential = 1
9TFY(R) Vessel speed(knots) 5 Damage Potential = 1
0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Ice Numeral
Figure 66: Vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for the Sir Wilfrid Laurier comparing the results for each of the three years of observations.
Figure 67: Ice regime with 6/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
CHC-TR-033 Page 61
Figure 68: Ice regime with 1/10 MFY, 6/10 TFY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Figure 69: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 6/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
CHC-TR-033 Page 62
Figure 70: Ice regime with 1/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Figure 71: Ice regime with 2/10 TFY, 8/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
CHC-TR-033 Page 63
Figure 72: Ice regime with 2/10 MFY, 3/10 TFY, 5/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Figure 73: Ice regime with 3/10 TFY, 1/10 MY ice observed from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
CHC-TR-033 Page 64
9.0 GENERAL ANALYSIS
The data obtained from this study can be used to investigate several aspects of the Ice Regime System. An analysis of the data is provided in the following sections.
9.1 Calculating the Ice Numeral
The data collection project showed that defining ice regimes and calculating the Ice Numeral was not a problem. Figure 74 shows the overall breakdown of the calculated Ice Numeral for each of the three years of the data collection program. The Ice Numeral was calculated correctly in the vast majority of cases. However, a few different types of mistakes were made: The most common mistake was not including the Open Water in the determination of the Ice Numeral. This can have a significant effect on the IN, especially if the ice concentration is relatively low. Since the Open Water Ice Multiplier is +2 for all vessels, neglecting it results in an overly negative Ice Numeral for those ice regimes. This was done consistently by a few of the ISS personnel, and this skews the data towards a larger number of incorrect Ice Numerals. This mistake decreased significantly in the third year of observations to 4% from 16% in the first year of the study. It should be noted that this calculation of an incorrect Ice Numeral reflects on the CCG evaluation of the IN for the specific ice regime. Ice decay was incorrectly accounted for in determining the Ice Multiplier for the regime. In some cases, the ice was identified as being rotten, but the +1 was not added to the Ice Multipliers. This results in a too-low Ice Numeral for the Ice Regime. It was clear from examining the field books that ice decay was a difficult concept to apply. In some cases, one ice type was rotten, whereas a second ice type was not. AIRSS is not clear on how to deal with this situation. In a few cases, mistakes were made summing the contributions from each ice type when determining the Ice Numeral (i.e. arithmetic errors).
As seen in Figure 74, there was a steady improvement in correctly determining the Ice Numeral. In 2002, it was calculated correctly 72% of the time. This improved to 82% and 88% in 2003 and 2004 respectively. The program shows that determining the Ice Numeral is relatively straightforward once the ice regime has been defined. The mistakes of neglecting the Open Water and incorrect summing can be corrected by taking a more careful approach. The mistake of choosing the incorrect Ice Multiplier would be remedied with more experience with the Ice Regime System.
CHC-TR-033 Page 65
Incorrect Ice Decay not Multiplier used taken into Arithmetic 1% account error 8% 2002 2% Open Water not taken into account 16%
Incorrect Ice Ice Numeral Concentration calculated 1% correctly 72%
Arithmetic error Open Water 2% not taken 2003 into account 16%
Ice Numeral calculated correctly 82%
Decay Arithmetic 4% error 4% 2004 Open Water not taken into account 4%
Ice Numeral calculated correctly 88%
Figure 74: Pie charts showing the breakdown of the calculated Ice Numeral for each of the three years of the data collection program. Note the steady improvement each year.
CHC-TR-033 Page 66
9.2 Ice Numeral and Vessel Damage
The Ice Regime System has been developed such that it should minimize the amount of vessel damage due to severe ice regimes (i.e. IN < 0) whilst allowing transit in ice regimes that should not cause vessel damage (IN ≥ 0). In this program, there was no damage to any of the CCG vessels, so if all of the vessels were categorized correctly in terms of their ice class, all of the Ice Numerals should be zero or positive. Figure 75 shows a pie chart of the Ice Numerals showing that in 89% of the reported observations, the Ice Numeral was zero or positive. Note that this figure does not include events in which the vessel was stopped (v=0) or where no speed was indicated. It does include the data with the Sir Wilfrid Laurier designated as a Type A vessel. There is quite reasonable agreement with the AIRSS definition of the Ice Numeral.
negative IN 11%
positive IN 89%
Figure 75: Pie charts showing the number of positive and negative Ice Numerals
9.3 CCG Comments on the Ice Numeral
The CCG Officer of the Watch (OOW) was asked to comment on the ability of the Ice Numeral to reflect the damage potential of the ice regime. There were a significant number of events where the OOW did not feel that the Ice Numeral adequately reflected the severity of the ice regime. These have been detailed for each vessel previously in this report. Figure 76 shows the breakdown of this for all vessels. In 19% of the cases, the CCG did not feel that the Ice Numeral was an adequate description of the ice regime. This evaluation is important, especially when the CCG gave reasons for their view that the IN was not correct. In this regard, there were a lot of very good comments by the Officer of the Watch. The CCG indicated that floe size and the ability of the vessel to manoeuvre through the ice should be taken into account in the Ice Regime System. Some comments were made on the difficulty of estimating the decay of the ice and whether the decay bonus should be used. Similar comments were made with respect to the ice roughness. The situation of a low concentration of Old Ice being potentially hazardous,
CHC-TR-033 Page 67
yet yielding a high IN, was also noted by a few of the vessels. Some comments were made with respect to the vessel’s ability to operate in the ice regime despite the low Ice Numeral for the ice regime. In this regard, it should be noted the Ice Regime System has been developed for ship safety, not operation, in different ice regimes. In AIRSS, if the Ice Numeral is positive, the vessel would be allowed to proceed using due care and diligence. The actual numerical value of the Ice Numeral reflects the severity of the system, but it is not a linear scale. Some of the confusion could be remedied if the Ice Numeral is viewed in terms of vessel safety and not operations. It should be noted that in about 15% of the cases, the CCG commented on an Ice Numeral that had been calculated incorrectly. Taking this in account alters the numbers in Figure 76, but not the general trend. Moreover, the most important information was the detailed comments on this issue.
No CCG input 12%
Ice Numeral representative of Ice Numeral not the severity of representative of the Ice Regime the severity of 69% the Ice Regime 19%
Figure 76: Pie chart showing the break-down of the CCG evaluation of the adequacy of the Ice Numeral to represent the severity of the ice regime.
9.4 Ice Numeral and Vessel Speed
Figure 77 shows a plot of vessel speed versus the Ice Numeral for all vessels. There is no evident trend. This, however, is not surprising since the vessel speed is not necessarily the highest speed that the vessel could travel in the ice regime. In many cases, the CCG vessels were engaged in activities that would limit their speed (e.g. escorting another vessel). Nevertheless, the graph is included as a comparison amongst all of the vessels.
9.5 Ground-Truthing of CIS Ice Charts
The data collected can be used as ground-truth measurements of ice conditions forecasted by the CIS on the Daily Ice Charts. Since the date and location of the vessels are recorded in the Field Books, it is possible to compare the ice conditions observed onboard the vessel to those indicated in the most recent CIS Ice Chart for that location. This was done by the authors for the 2002 season.
CHC-TR-033 Page 68
Figure 78 shows a histogram of the difference between the total ice concentration indicated on the CIS Ice Chart, compared to that observed onboard the CCG vessels. Each data point corresponds to a particular latitude/longitude position and the concentration is compared to the last available Ice Chart for that location. The comparison shows that for total ice concentration, the CIS Charts agree with the actual observations to within ±1/10 in 60% of the cases. This agreement is quite remarkable considering the resolution of the Ice Charts. In this case, a point observation is compared to an Ice Chart that has a scale of 1:2-million. Overall, there was a slight tendency for the CIS ice charts to under-predict the actual total ice concentration.
20 DES GROSEILLIERS HENRY LARSEN LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT PIERRE RADISSON SIR WILFRID LAURIER TERRY FOX 15
10
Vessel speed (knots) speed Vessel 5
0 -20-100 102030 Ice Numeral
Figure 77: Vessel speed versus the AIRSS Ice Numeral for all vessels during the data collection program.
Figure 79 shows a histogram of the difference between the CIS charts and the observed ice concentrations for Thick First-year ice. The concentrations agree for 38% of the 148 observations that involved Thick First-year ice. In 63% of the cases, the actual and CIS chart conditions agree to within ±1/10th concentration. Overall, there was a tendency for the CIS ice charts to over-predict the actual Thick First-year ice concentration.
Figure 80 shows a histogram of the difference between the CIS charts and the observed ice concentrations for Multi-year ice. The concentrations agree for 51% of the 92
CHC-TR-033 Page 69
observations that have Multi-year ice present. In 81% of the cases, the actual and predicted conditions agree to within ±1/10th concentration. Overall, there was a tendency for the CIS ice charts to underpredict the actual Multi-year ice concentration.
40 CIS-Charts - Observed 60% within +/- 1/10 of predicted concentration 30
20 Frequency (%) 10
0 -10-8-6-4-2 0 2 4 6 810 Underpredicted Difference in Total Concentration Overpredicted
Figure 78: Histogram showing the difference between the total ice concentration from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions.
40 63% within +/- 1/10 of CIS Charts - Observed 35 predicted 30 No thick FY ice 25
20
15 Frequency (%) 10
5
0 -10-8-6-4-20246810 Underpredicted Overpredicted Difference in Thick FY Ice Concentration Figure 79: Histogram showing the difference between the concentration of Thick First-year ice from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions.
CHC-TR-033 Page 70
9.6 Ice Numerals from the CIS Charts
In the Ice Regime System, the Ice Numeral must be based on the ice regime seen from the Bridge of the vessel. Prior to transiting ice-covered waters, the CIS Ice Charts can be used to generate Ice Numerals for planning purposes and route selection. Since the Ice Charts were available to the Coast Guard, it was possible to compare the Ice Numerals calculated from the bridge observations with those estimated from the CIS Ice Charts. This was done by the authors for the 2002 season.
60 CIS Charts - Observed 50 81% within +/- 1/10 of predicted
40
30 No MY ice
Frequency (%) Frequency 20
10
0 -10-8-6-4-20246810 Underpredicted Overpredicted Difference in MY ice concentration Figure 80: Histogram showing the difference between the concentration of Multi- year ice from the CIS Ice Charts and the observed ice conditions. Note that the Charts underpredict the amount of Multi-year ice.
Figure 81 shows the results for the 172 events in which Ice Chart information was available. The analysis indicates that the Ice Numeral estimated using the CIS Ice Charts was in agreement with the bridge observations in about 27% of the events. On average, the Ice Charts overestimated the Ice Numeral. This is a direct result of the finding from this study that the CIS Charts often underpredict the amount of Multi-year ice, especially for smaller Multi-year floes.
CHC-TR-033 Page 71
30 CIS Charts - Observed 25
20
15
Frequency (%) 10
5
0 -28 -24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Underpredicted Difference in Ice Numeral Overpredicted
Figure 81: Histogram showing the difference between the Ice Numerals estimated from the CIS Ice Charts with those observed from the Bridge. Note that using the CIS Charts overestimated the Ice Numerals.
CHC-TR-033 Page 72
10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This data collection program on ice regimes and AIRSS onboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaking vessels was highly successful. There was tremendous co-operation of all of the participants and a significant amount of data were collected. The data have been used to evaluate the ease of application of the Ice Regime System, to provide ground- truthed ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, and to apply the experience of the CCG Commanding Officers to the Ice Regime System. In the future, it will be used as a basis for evaluating the implementation of the new Arctic Guidelines for Polar Class (PC) vessels. This is especially useful since these vessels encountered negative IN without damage.
The comments provided by the CCG and ISS were very helpful, both in terms of factors that should be considered and the ease of understanding and using the Ice Regime System. In some cases, there appeared to be confusion on the intent of the system, especially as it relates to the safety and structural integrity of the vessel in different ice conditions. Nevertheless, the ISS ice information and the CCG comments have provided important information for the improvement of AIRSS. The analysis of this data has shown: The Ice Numeral was calculated correctly in the vast majority of cases. The most common mistake was neglecting to include the open water in the calculation. This results in a lower Ice Numeral. In the final year of observations, the Ice Numeral was calculated correctly in 88% of the observations. Since there was no damage on the CCG vessels during this program, the Ice Numerals should be positive for all observations. Analysis of the data shows that 89 % of the observations had a zero or positive Ice Numeral. There was confusion on the incorporation of both the ice decay and ice roughness in the application of AIRSS. This was mainly as a result of the ambiguous definition of decay and roughness in the AIRSS Standard. Observations from the Louis S. St-Laurent indicated a situation with multi-year ice and thick first-year ice with low concentrations (3/10ths) which was identified as having a high potential to damage a vessel. There was also a situation with heavy fog conditions in iceberg waters. The ship speed was above 12 knots in all three cases. The Ice Numeral for these situations was highly positive. The observations indicate that this ice situation can have high potential to damage a vessel, especially at high speed. This situation is not covered properly with the present Ice Regime System. Information from the Terry Fox indicated the inconsistency of having a decayed first-year ice with a higher Ice Multiplier than Open Water. It also pointed out the issue of the lack of consideration for floe size in the Ice Numeral. The Des Groseilliers was able to traverse through second-year ice at a high speed, because the ice was both rotten and thin. Although AIRSS takes the decay of second-year ice into account, there is no provision to account for thin second-year ice. This illustrates inconsistency in the application of AIRSS in this case.
CHC-TR-033 Page 73
The Des Groseilliers pointed out that roughness of small floes does not pose a threat to navigation. Further, they noted the pressure is not taken into account. They also comment that a high Ice Numeral may give a false sense of security since the ice regime may still pose some threat to damage the vessel. Also, the presence of trace amounts of multi-year ice may pose a threat and this is not taken into account in AIRSS. The Pierre Radisson noted that the shape of the floes (e.g. strips) should be included in the determination of the Ice Numeral and that the same IN was determined for two conditions where one was a more severe condition. They also noted the situation similar to that reported by the Louis S. St-Laurent that low concentration of Old Ice can be hazardous. The Sir Wilfrid Laurier noted that ice decay and floe size affect the manoeuvrability of the vessel, and this should be considered. A detailed comparison of the observed data and the corresponding CIS Ice Chart for the 2002 season indicated that (1) there was a slight tendency for the CIS ice charts to under-predict the actual total ice concentration, (2) there was a tendency for the CIS ice charts to over-predict the actual Thick First-year ice concentration, and (3) there was a tendency for the CIS ice charts to underpredict the actual Multi-year ice concentration.
Copies of the database with the full results, including all photographs, have been given to the Canadian Coast Guard – Arctic region in Sarnia, the CCG Headquarters in Ottawa, the Canadian Ice Service, and Transport Canada. It provides a valuable source of information for future studies of icebreaking vessels in a wide range of ice conditions.
CHC-TR-033 Page 74
11.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The CHC would like to acknowledge the financial support for this research by Transport Canada, especially Victor Santos-Pedro for his support of this work. They would also like to thank the Commanding Officers of the Coast Guard icebreakers and the Ice Service Specialists of the CIS for their diligent collection of the data. Several other people assisted in this program including Darlene Langlois, Bob Zacharuk, Marie-France Gauthier, Roger DeAbreu, Denise Sudom, Dugald Wells, Gary Sidock and Jean Ouellet, and their support and interest is greatly appreciated.
12.0 REFERENCES
AIRSS, 1996. Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS) Standards, Transport Canada, June 1996, TP 12259E, Ottawa, Canada.
ASPPR, 1989. Proposals for the Revision of the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations. Transport Canada Report TP 9981, Ottawa, Canada.
Gauthier, M-F., De Abreu, R., Timco, G.W. and Johnston, M.E. 2002. Ice Strength Information in the Canadian Arctic: From Science to Operations. Proceedings of the 16th IAHR International Symposium on Ice, pp 203-210, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Langlois, D.J., De Abreu, R., Gauthier, M-F., Timco, G.W. and Johnston, M. 2003. Early Results of the Canadian Ice Service Ice Strength Chart. Proceedings 17th POAC Conference, POAC’03, Vol. 1, pp 165-174, Trondheim, Norway.
Timco, G.W. and Kubat, I. 2002. Scientific Basis for Ice Regime System: Discussion Paper. NRC Report CHC-TR-002, Ottawa, Canada.
Timco, G.W., Johnston, M., Sudom, D., Gauthier, M-F. and Zacharuk, R. 2003a. Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes. Proceedings 17th POAC Conference, POAC’03, Vol. 1, pp 141-150, Trondheim, Norway.
Timco, G.W., Johnston, M., Sudom, D., Kubat, I. and Collins, A. 2003b. Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers – 2002. NRC Report CHC-TR- 012, Ottawa, Canada.
Timco, G.W., Kubat, I. and Johnston, M. 2004a. Scientific Basis for the Ice Regime System: Final Report. NRC Report CHC-TR-020, Ottawa, Canada.
Timco, G.W., Kubat, I., Collins, A. and M. Johnston. 2004b. Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers – 2003. NRC Report CHC-TR-021, Ottawa, Canada.
CHC-TR-033 A1
APPENDIX A
Details of the Ice Regime Observations 2002 to 2004
CHC-TR-033 A2
CHC-TR-033 A3
LOUIS S. ST LAURENT
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------0 20 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 - - - Y - - 0 11 0 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 9 28 It is hard to believe this type 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 9 29 conditions is given a higher Ice Numeral than open water. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 ------9 10 Slow speed for escort of 2 sailboats. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - Y 6 14 ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multipliers, but did not circle them. 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 25 Navigating in fog with icebergs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------14 20 1 around. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 Y - Y - - - 14 13 1 ISS used "ridged" IM for MY ice, and 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Y - - - - Y 12 13 1 "decay" IM for FY ice. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 - - Y - - - 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 14 20 2 Both "potential for damage" and "not likely to damage vessel" are checked. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 Y - - - - Y 8 3 2 ISS used "ridged" IM for MY ice, and "normal" IM for TFY ice. 3 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 ------5 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 ------6 -4 2 ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multipliers, but 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 - - - Y - Y 7 4 2 did not circle them. 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 ------2 20 3 Proceeding slow to new position. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 17 22 3 Ice organized in a varing narrow band 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Y - - - - - 10 12 3 through navigating area (SL) 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------8 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - Y - - - 12 25 3 Agree with Ice Code. Heavy going in 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Y - Y - - - 0 26 3 places requiring extra power, as already noted. 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ------2 20 3 Visibility less than 0.5 nm in fog. 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Y - - - - - 13 29 3 Throughout watch maintained course line in ice. 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 ------6 20 3 Proceeding slow, visibility optimal. We have encountered this type of ice predominantly in the western arctic. This is an area that is historically 90% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ------0 -10 3 old ice. A lot of the ice we have seen is only 1-1.5 mtr thick and we have managed to maintain 10 kts, if required. (Avoiding the ridges). 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ------0 20 3 Proceeding slowly as per instructions, 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------7 20 3 visibility optimal. 7 holes were drilled in this floe ranging from 1.1 to 2.0 mtrs at the thickest 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ------0 20 3 spots. We are in an area of the permanent multi-year ice pack but have encountered very easy CHC-TR-033 A4
LOUIS S. ST LAURENT
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
conditions for navigation. 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ------11 20 3 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------0 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 - - - Y - - 0 10 3 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 3 ISS used "decay" IM for MY and TFY 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 Y - Y - - - 0 20 3 ice, and "normal" IM for nilas ice. 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 Y - Y - - - 15 22 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 3 ISS used "decay" IM for MY and MFY 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 Y - Y - - - 12 21 3 ice, and "normal" IM for nilas ice. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Y - Y - - - 9 19 3 Ice distributed in strips and patches of 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Y - Y - - - 15 19 3 9/10. Following leads - various courses 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 Y - Y - - - 6 20 3 maintaining base course for program. 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------6 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 ------0 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 Y - Y - - - 9 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ------7 20 3 Good visibility. Slowed down for MY 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 Y - Y - - - 15 21 3 ice pieces, following open water. Staying to open water leads, good 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 15 20 3 visibility. 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 ------8 17 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 Y - - - - - 3 1 3 Escorting Federal Franklin. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - Y 8 14 3 ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multipliers, but did not circle them. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 - - - - - Y 5 -4 3 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 25 3 Stopped to wait for weather conditions to improve. Blizzard conditions. ISS used incorrect IM to calculate the contribution of the nilas ice to the Ice Numeral. ISS used "Normal" IM to calculate the contribution of the nilas ice and the 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------0 20 3 grey ice to the Ice Numeral, but used the "Ridged" IM to calculate the contribution of the grey-white ice to the Ice Numeral. Since the Ice Roughness is indicated as "Low", the "Ridged" nature of the grey-white ice was not coded into the database. No IM were circled 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 - - - - - Y 5 8 3 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 ------7 20 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 5 - - - - - Y 5 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 4 - - - - - Y 10 4 3 0 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 ------11 12 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 3 ------8 10 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 - - - - Y Y 7 8 3 Stopped in ice. Standing by for 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------0 20 4 shipping. CHC-TR-033 A5
LOUIS S. ST LAURENT
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
1 Narrow band of (4/13/94·/~7). 1 narrow band approx 3-4 nm wide (SL) 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 Y - - - - - 7 20 4 Decayed TFY ice having a higher positive value than OW or Bergy water? (SL) Ship down 1 engine working on 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 21 4 instead of 5 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 14 29 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 16 29 4 Stopped in ice in Barrow Strait. 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 ------0 20 4 Stand-by for shipping. 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------11 20 4 Egg diagram with total concentration = 10, Stage of development = 4., conc. = 2, Flow size = 4. Stage of development = 9., conc. = 2, Flow size = 3. Stage of development = 9., conc. 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 - - - - - Y 3 4 4 = 2, Flow size = 4. Stage of development =4, conc. = 4, Flow size = x. Ice regime is consolidated 10/10 at the shore-line. 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 29 4 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 8 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 Y - Y - - - 9 20 4 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 15 25 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 4 Visibility 7 nm, and lookout on bridge. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 4 Good visibility. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 6 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Y - Y - - - 0 22 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 8 29 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------16 20 4 Exited the ice into bergy water. Ship 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------6 20 4 heading for 60 degrees north Dartmouth. 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 Y - Y - - - 0 21 4 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 1 ------6 17 4 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 ------10 20 4 Slow speed for escorting sail boats. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 - - - Y - - 7 19 4 ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multiplier, but did not circle it. 0 0 0 6 3 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 24 4 Slow speed for sail boat escort 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - Y 5 13 4 ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multipliers, but did not circle them. 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 Y - - Y - - 10 17 4 3 0 0 1 4 1 0 1 Y - - - - - 9 22 4 Ice in strips of 7/10. Slow speed for escort of 2 sail boats. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 - - - Y - Y 6 14 4 ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multipliers, but did not circle them. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 - - - Y - - 0 19 4 Waiting for escort. CHC-TR-033 A6
LOUIS S. ST LAURENT
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multiplier, but did not circle it. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 21 4 Escort of ship. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 - - - Y - - 15 19 4 ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multiplier, but did not circle it. 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 20 4 ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multipliers, but 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - - - Y - Y 0 15 4 did not circle them. ISS used "Ridged" Ice Multiplier, but 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - Y - - 8 10 4 did not circle it. 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 ------8 11 4 Reduced speed but not because of ice 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------6 20 4 severity. 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 1 ------0 17 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------14 20 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15.5 20 4 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------15 20 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------14 20 4 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------7 20 4 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 ------7.7 20 4 1 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 - - - Y - - 2 8 4 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 - - - Y - - 6 10 4 1 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 ------13.1 20 4 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------13.3 20 4 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 ------13.2 20 4 1 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 ------13 20 4
CHC-TR-033 A7
TERRY FOX
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
ISS used "normal" IM for TFY ice, and "decay" IM for 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 Y - - Y - - 10 20 MFY ice. ISS indicated drainage conditions. ISS used "ridged" IM for TFY ice, "decay" IM for MFY 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 1 Y - - Y - - 8 17 ice, and "normal" IM for MY ice. 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 Y - Y - - - 3 18 OPEN WATER. Apparently this condition has a higher potential for damage than 10/10 thick first year decayed. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------0 20 HOGWASH. I do not want my name associated with this system. ISS used "ridged" IM for MY ice, and "normal" IM for FY 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 3 - - - - - Y 5 8 1 ice. I do not want my name being associated with this system. Pictures in c:\pictures2002-Do not 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 - - - - - Y 8 12 2 erase\2002_iss. Puddles frozen. Location falls near boundary of 2 egg zones ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. No IM were circled. 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 Y - Y - - - 10 19 2 Note: IM for MY are same for "Normal" and "Decay" conditions. I do not want my name being associated with this 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 - - - - - Y 6 16 2 system. Puddles frozen. Location falls near boundary of 2 egg zones I do not want my name being associated with this 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 ------13 20 2 system. Puddles frozen. This area was of higher concentration of ice and MY ice. 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 2 Y - - - - - 4 20 2 Trace icebergs also encountered. I do not want my name being associated with this 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 - - - - - Y 12 16 2 system. Puddles frozen. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 - - - Y - - 6 17 2 Good conditions. Visibility restricted at times in fog, 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 - - - Y - Y 10 13 2 increasing damage potential. 4 - 5 vast foes of MY ice on Radarsay image. Could 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 - - - Y - Y 13 11 2 easily go around them. ISS used "normal" Ice Multiplier, which averages out between rotten flat floes and hard thick ridges. Some vast floes of TFY ice with ridges and puddles, but hard to 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - - Y - - 10 17 2 break for a cargo ship. ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier, see note above. There is a higher potential for damage with the presence 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 - - - Y - - 10 16 2 of multi-year floes in the vicinity (at the left on the picture). I do not want my name associated with this system. 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 - - - Y - - 14 17 2 Puddles frozen 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 Y - Y Y - - 4 17 2 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 2 Y - Y - - - 4 23 2 ISS Ice Numeral calculated using the ridged TFY and 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 2 - - - Y - - 0 6 2 MFY ice multipliers. 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 ------8 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 ------5 17 2 Good conditions 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 Y - - - - - 0.5 26 2 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 Y - - - - - 10 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 22 2 Good conditions; visibility poor in fog at times. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 11 21 3 CHC-TR-033 A8
TERRY FOX
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 Y Y - - - - 3 26 3 M/V Bremen under escort, south bound peel sound ISS used decayed ice multiplier to calculate IN, although 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 ------5 20 3 decay was not specified (stage of melt was "ponding"). 0 0 0 2 2 5 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 27 4 M/V Bremen under escort, south bound Franklin Strait. M/V Bremen under escort. 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 0 Y Y - - - - 3 26 4 Ice Numeral not reflective. (CG) 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 Y - - - - - 4 30 4
CHC-TR-033 A9
HENRY LARSEN
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments IN DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY Speed MY MY MY GW TFY MFY
- Escorting M/V UMIAVUT through North Bay into the approaches to Lake Harbour 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 Y - - - - - 7.2 20 - Normal IM used for old ice, decay IM used for FY concs, due some rot + thaw holes in FY vs normal ponding on old ice. - Transit into Frobisher Bay to assist shipping. - Narrow band of ice assessed as 9/126/994./322. 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 ------5 11 2 - 2/10 ridging, many puddles; - Normal early summer melt pattern. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 ------5.4 14 2 - Concentrations vrbl btwn 2 and 4/10 - Continued transit NW' wards into Frobisher Bay. 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 ------7 13 2 - Ice assessed as 7/2113/9844./3232. CN 2/10 ridging / hummocking and many puddles. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 9 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 ------7 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 21 2 - Escorting M/V 'UMIAVUT' outbound 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 ------5.3 11 2 - Mean ice conc 7/124/994./322 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 23 2 - Escorting cruise ship 'BREMEN' westwards towards Clyde River 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------10.4 17 2 - Avg concentration assessed as 4/121/944./332 (large + vast floes northwards) Contact with the ice feature was minimized due slow 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 ------2 8 3 speed of H.L. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 9 22 4 Lots of rubble and ridge remnants. Rubble field with lots of ridge remnants. Some drainage on some of the larger small floes, but generally the floes 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 29 4 are too small to have extensive drainage. Because of these notes the FY_Decay and Decaying? Fields have been checked. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 ------6 20 4 Rubble field with lots of ridge remnants. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 Y - Y - - - 6.3 21 4 - Escorting M/V IMUIVAQ to Resolute
CHC-TR-033 A10
DES GROSEILLIERS
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 3.6 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 - - - Y - - 3 18 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------6 19 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 ------3 13 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. Multi-year floe. ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 ------4 17 The Ridged Ice Multiplier was used, but since no other indication of ridging exists, the Ridging fields were not checked. 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 - - - Y - Y 6 -8 Some drainage. 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 Y - Y - - - 5 0 2 Big floe of old ice and thick first year ice 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 Y - - - - - 6 -6 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 1 ------15 -12 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 - - - Y - - 9 -12 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 Y Y - - - - 6.5 -4 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 ------6 -7 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 3 - - - - Y - 4 -14 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 - - - - Y - 2.1 -10 2 We are escorting, therefore we have reduced the ships 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 - - - - Y Y 6.5 1 2 speed. The previous night the vessel travelled in decayed SY ice with an IN of -13. The vessel proceeded without problem and the more severe ice was easy to detect. This morning there were ice pieces of different stages of decay. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Y Y - - - - 14 12 2 The vessel proceeded without problem, but care had to be taken not to take on air and hit a more dangerous piece of ice. The IN of +11 gives a - sense of security. There is a higher potential for damage this morning than there was yesterday when the IN was -13. The vessel in the photo is the Lady Franklin, waiting to 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 Y - - - - - 10 16 2 be escorted. ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 - - - Y Y Y 7 -16 2 Ship escorting 'Tuvaq' 4 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 ------9.1 9 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 ------7 -7 2 ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 20 2 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ------10 14 2 ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 4 17 2 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. ISS indicate drainage conditions, but use "normal" 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Y - - - - - 8 20 2 instead of "decay" IM. ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 17 2 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------14 20 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 ------1 19 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 1 ------7.5 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 - - - Y - Y 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Y - - - - - 1 20 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 Y - Y - - - 2.5 12 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 0.5 17 3 The Normal Ice Multiplier column header was circled despite the indication of Drainage. 1 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 Y - Y - - - 3.5 16 3 CHC-TR-033 A11
DES GROSEILLIERS
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 12 27 3 - 4 motors / 6 motors in line - Ice was mostly melted, causing little resistance to the 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 Y Y - - - - 10 -7 3 vessel. - The most important ice pieces (iceberg fragments) were easily detectable (good visibility) 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------4 18 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 Y - - - - - 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------11 19 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 6 20 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. ISS ice concentrations add up to 11 - Sy concentration 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 ------15 -15 3 changed to 7 from 8 Proceed full ahead with 5 motors. Average speed of 9.5 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 Y Y - - - - 8.5 2 3 knts for first 2 hours of watch. The vessel proceeds with 5 of 6 engines. Had to make 2 tries and go backwards (?) because the vessel was immobilised due to the ice. Average speed of 6 knots in 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 - Y - - - - 8 -7 3 last 2 hours of watch. ISS used "normal" IM, although drainage conditions were specified. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - Y 7.4 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 Y Y - - - - 10 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------10 19 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 1 ------4 -3 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 Y - - - - Y 8 9 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Y - - - - - 9 10 3 Full ahead at 13 knots, with 4 of 6 motors. ISS used "normal" Ice Multiplier for MY ice, and "ridged" 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 - - - Y - - 6 -10 3 IM for FY ice. ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - - - - - Y 3 -16 3 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. Full ahead with 4 motors. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - - - - - 6 15 3 ISS Ice Numeral calculated incorrectly (sum should be +15). ISS used incorrect Ice Multipliers in their calculation of 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 - - - Y - - 0 1 3 the IN. ISS used "normal" IM for MY ice, and "ridged" IM for TFY 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 - - - Y - - 12 11 3 ice. ISS used "normal" IM for MY ice, and "ridged" IM for TFY ice. Drainage is indicated. ISS indicated drainage 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - Y Y - - 7 9 3 conditions, but did not used "decay" Ice Multiplier to calculate IN. 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 ------0 10 3 ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 5 16 3 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Y - Y - - - 7 16 3 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Y - Y - - - 9 17 3 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. ISS indicated "drainage" conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Y - Y - - - 7 17 3 IM. 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Y - - - - - 13 20 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 ------2 12 4 Many Icebergs 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 ------3 18 4 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 12 27 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 11 23 4 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 21 4 CHC-TR-033 A12
DES GROSEILLIERS
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY MY MY MY GW TFY MFY IN AIRSS Speed Knots
0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Y - - - - - 6 26 4 ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used the "normal" 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Y - Y - - - 12 16 4 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier to calculate IN. 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 Y Y - - - - 6 14 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 ------8 20 4 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 Y Y - - - - 14 2 4 Proceed with 4 motors, full ahead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------12 20 4 ISS did not include OW in the Ice Numeral calculations. CAC 4 for R class is too low. We should have the same 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 Y Y - - - - 9 -2 4 as for the Henry Larsen (CAC 3). For a vessel of this class, normal or decayed nilas ice doesn't make a difference in the movement of the vessel. 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Y - - - - - 10 15 4 ISS used "decay" IM for TFY ice, and "normal" IM for MY and nilas ice. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------8 19 4 Maneuver easily around large ice pieces. Very little speed reduction necessary. 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - Y - - 11 16 4 ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used ridged and normal Ice Multipliers. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 ------11 8 4 Easy progress, no speed reduction necessary. Average speed between 16:00 and 17:00 was 11.5 knts. Proceeding with 4 motors. 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 Y - - - - - 6 15 4 ISS used "decay" IM for TFY ice, and "normal" IM for MY and nilas ice. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ------12 19 4
CHC-TR-033 A13
PIERRE RADISSON
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments IN DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY Speed MY MY MY GW TFY MFY
ISS used wrong (IM)s 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 ------5 -18 1 ISS noted sum of ice concentrations as 9+ ISS used wrong (IM)s. Location falls near boundary of 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 4 ------4 -16 1 egg zones with ice drift = 7 NM/Day. Ice is reforming and ponds are freezing back 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 ------5 -8 2 ISS used wrong (IM)s. ISS calculated C x IM for TFY incorrectly. Should be -4 instead of -5. Location falls on boundary of 2 egg zones. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 ------5 -18 2 ISS used wrong (IM)s Some decayed ice. 50% of the FY ice is decayed. TFY: 3 pieces with size 3 to 3.5 km (radar) TFY and MFY ice have some ridges, and are decayed 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 3 2 about 75%. ISS used "Ridged" IM for MY and SY, but did not circle them. ISS indicated drainage conditions. 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 ------4 9 2 Although a bit far, the photos show a vast floe (2.6 x 2.5 nm by radar) of a "dangerous" looking piece of ice. Never 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 - - - Y Y Y 0 -24 2 saw anything so ridged before. Photo IMG_1031 shows the end of a long ridge line, approx. 15 feet height. 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 ------5 8 2 ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 Y - Y - - - 3 18 2 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. No IM were circled. Photos IMG_0481 to 0484 show a panoramic view of a 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 - - - Y - Y 10 5 2 multiyear floe (size 5). 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 ------2.5 10 2 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 - - - Y - Y 4.5 -7 2 Ice Numeral is added incorrectly. 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 ------3 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 ------1 3 2 ISS calculated Ice Numeral incorrectly. 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 ------6 6 3 ISS use "decay" Ice Multiplier for MFY ice, although no 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 ------5 11 3 melt condition is specified. 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 ------6 16 3 ISS used wrong (IM)s. ISS did not include open water in 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 3 IN calculation and did not multiply the IM by C for N. C x IM should be 14, not 7. ISS used wrong (IM)s. ISS did not include open water in 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------9 20 3 IN calculation and used IM of 2 although not circled. Location falls on boundary of 2 egg zones. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 20 3 ISS used wrong (IM)s. ISS did not include open water in 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 ------6 18 3 IN calculation. TFY became FY. ISS used wrong (IM)s. ISS do not include open water in IN calculation and did not calculate 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 ------8 11 3 C x IM for G correctly. C x IM for G should be 4 instead of 6. ISS indicated both ridged and decayed ice (drainage 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 1 3 conditions), but used ridged IM. Ice concentrations given by ISS add up to 11, resulting in 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 ------8 16 3 a different Ice Numeral. 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 Y - - - - - 8 20 3 ISS used wrong (IM)s. ISS did not include open water in IN calculation and did not calculate C x IM for N 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 ------8 16 3 correctly. C x IM for N should be 2 instead of 3. Location falls near boundary of 2 egg zones CHC-TR-033 A14
PIERRE RADISSON
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments IN DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY Speed MY MY MY GW TFY MFY
9/10 strips. Ice is typical of the Foxe Bassin with dark tinges in places, giving the impression that the floes are 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 ------5.6 16 3 smaller from a distance. (Not enough white for a good contrast). 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 ------5 16 3 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 Y - - - - - 3.2 21 3 Escorting the ship "AIVIK" Anchored in open water on September 6. 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 Y - - - - - 5 21 3 Ice generally very soft Escorting the M/V "AIVIK" ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 Y - Y - - - 8 20 3 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. No IM were circled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------12 20 4 Some melting and drainage. Very few ridges. 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Y - Y - - - 7.8 16 4 ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. ISS indicated drainage conditions, but used "normal" 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 22 4 instead of "decay" Ice Multiplier. 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 ------7 18 4 ISS indicate both ridging and decay (drainage 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 Y - Y Y - Y 0 4 4 conditions), but use "ridged" Ice Multiplier. 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 - - - Y - - 6 3 4 ISS do not include open water in IN calculation. ISS 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 15 29 4 used "Decay" IM but did not circle it. 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 23 4 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 Y - - Y - - 3.3 12 4 ISS do not include open water in IN calculation. ISS 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 29 4 used "Decay" IM but did not circle it. 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 ------6.4 13 4 2 motors ISS do not include open water in IN calculation. ISS 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 29 4 used "Decay" IM but did not circle it. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ------8.5 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 20 4 ISS do not include open water in IN calculation. ISS 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Y - - - - - 0 29 4 used "Decay" IM but did not circle it. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------11 20 4 No ice present during the last four hours 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 4 ISS used wrong (IM)s 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 9 20 4 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 ------10 20 4 ISS used wrong (IM)s 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Y - - - - - 8 20 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ------16 20 4 Strips composed of Ice cakes and small Ice cakes 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 Y - - - - - 5 18 4 MFY and TFY ice are rotten/decayed. No melt. Water temperature: -1.3 deg C. Air 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - - - Y - Y 13 12 4 temperature: -4.0 deg C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------12 20 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 ------6 20 4 Escorting the M/V "AIVIK" 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 8 21 4 Escorting the M/V "AIVIK" 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 ------5 11 4
CHC-TR-033 A15
SIR WILFRID LAURIER
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments IN DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY Speed MY MY MY GW TFY MFY
0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 ------5 ISS did not include the open water in calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 ------7 ISS did not include the open water in calculations. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Y - - - - - 12 ISS did not include the open water in calculations. 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 ISS indicated "snow melt" and "ponding" conditions, but 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 Y - Y - - - 5 9 used Decay IM. 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 1 Y - Y - - - 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 10 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 Y - Y - - - 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 - - - - - Y 5 -11 1 NIL - Ship escorting M/V Hanseatic westwards towards Herschel Island (visibility reduced in fog throughout day). - Predominantly thick FY ice showing normal summer 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 - - - Y - - 2 -16 1 melt. Ridge remnants of old ice in small floes. - This was a significant ice field, and extremely difficult to work through due to reduced visibility in fog. - Several floes greater than 3 metres thick. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 Y - Y - - - 2 -12 2 CAC 4 does give a better numeral than type A though. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 ------4 -12 2 Example of ice conditions encountered for brief distance 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 Y ------13 2 before route alteration Continued from 'Does Ice Numeral reflect the degree of severity of the ice conditions?' notes: AIRRS does not 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 Y ------10 2 take into account ice floe size and V/L maneuverability. Example of ice conditions observed from helicopter recco. ship did not transit through these conditions. Big to vast multi year flows, impossible to break from a 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 ------0 -10 2 ship of this class. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------5 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 Y - - - - - 4 10 3 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 10 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Y - - - - - 4.5 20 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 Y - - Y - - 5 14 3 Moderate conditions 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------0 18 3 Little risk of damage unless excessive speed was 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 Y - - Y - - 6 16 3 utilised 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 Y - Y - - - 5.5 12 3 Very little open water to move (tug)? into, track for tug 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 6 Y - Y - - - 2 -2 3 closed quickly - some pressure, small bits of 1st year jammed progress, esp for tug. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 ------5 -3 3 Made 3 kn with tug & barge escort, unlike 1 1/2 km in 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 Y - Y - - - 3.5 -12 3 obs 10 with tug alone. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 Y - Y - - - 2 -12 3 Because we are now October 1st. the change in the 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 ------3 2 3 numeral is dramatic (Benoit Simard) - Northern reaches of Victoria Strait 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 4.6 18 3 - Trace amts of SY ice and ridges - Significant melt and rot 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 Y - - Y - - 2 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ------9 12 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 Y - - Y - - 2 14 3 3 to 4.5 kn on 2 M.E., vessel did not work really hard 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 Y - Y - - - 3.75 -4 3 except for a few ridges. (Did not need 3 M.E. to maintain speed) CHC-TR-033 A16
SIR WILFRID LAURIER
Ice Concentration Decay Ridged
CCG Comments IN DP # N G FY FY FY SY SY SY Speed MY MY MY GW TFY MFY
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 ------5.1 -2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------14 18 4 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 Y - - - - - 3.7 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 12 20 4 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 Y - - - - - 5 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ------7 16 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 ------0 -3 4 Past comments re ship numeral re L/B ratio, # of shafts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - - - - - Y 6.5 14 4 should be taken into account for ship multiplier not just ice class assigned. 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 5 Y - Y - - - 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Y - - - - - 5.2 12 4 - Northbound through Victoria Strait, enroute Peel Sound for rendez-vous with cruise ship 'Hanseatic' 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 Y - - - - - 6 18 4 - Predominantly medium and thin FY ice showing significant degradation and melt - Thick FY in concentrations from trace amounts to 1/10 - Escort of M/V Hanseatic southwards through Larsen Sd and Victoria Strait 0 0 0 1 5 2 0 0 Y - - - - - 7 16 4 - Level, decayed MFY ice - No pressure, coming through ice edge. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ------6 16 4 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 Y - - - - - 5 24 4 Ice mainly small flows, heavily puddled & rotten. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Y - - - - Y 6 2 4 Need multiplier for under close pack conditions?
Transport Transports Canada Canada PUBLICATION DATA FORM - FORMULE DE DONNÉES SUR LA PUBLICATION
1. Transport Canada Publication No. 2. Project No. - No de l’étude 3. Recipients Catalogue No. No de la publication de Transports Canada No de catalogue du destinataire
TP 14097 E
4. Title and Subtitle - Titre et sous-titre 5. Publication Date - Date de la publication
Data Collection Program on Ice Regimes Onboard the CCG Icebreakers – 2002 to 2004 March 2005
Programme de collecte de données sur les régimes de glaces à bord des brise-glaces de la GCC – 2002 à 2004 6. Performing Organization Document No. No du document de l’organisme
CHC-TR-033
7. Author(s) - Auteur(s) 8. Transport Canada File No. No de dossier de Transports Canada G.W. Timco, A. Collins, I. Kubat and M. Johnston
9. Performing Organization Name and Address - Nom et adresse de l’organisme exécutant 10. DSS File No. - No de dossier - ASC
Canadian Hydraulics Centre National Research Council Ottawa, Ont., K1A 0R6 Canada 11. DSS or Transport Canada Contract No. No de contrat - ASC ou Transports Canada
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address - Nom et adresse de l’organisme parrain 13. Type of Publication and Period Covered Genre de publication et période visée Transport Canada Marine Safety Technical Report 330 Sparks St. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code -Code de l’roganisme parrain Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0N8
15. Supplementary Notes - Remarques additionelles 16. Project Officer - Agent de projet
V.M. Santos-Pedro 17. Abstract – Résumé
During the summers of 2002, 2003 and 2004, a data collection program was carried out onboard six Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers. Information was collected on the ice conditions (ice regimes) and the stage of melting (decay) of the ice. In total, 345 ice regimes were documented and photographed. Based on this information, the severity of the ice regimes were evaluated in terms of the Canadian Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System. This report provides a description of the data collection program for the full three years and an overview of the results.
Un programme de collecte de données sur le terrain à bord de six brise-glaces de la Garde côtière canadienne a été conçu et exécuté pendant l’été de 2002, 2003 et 2004. On a recueilli de l’information sur l’état des glaces (régimes de glaces) et le stade de fonte (décroissance). Au total, 345 régimes de glaces ont été documentés et photographiés. Basé sur l’information recueillie, l’état des régimes de glaces a été évaluée en terme du Système des régimes de glaces pour la navigation dans l'Arctique. Ce rapport présente une description du programme de collecte de données et une vue d’ensemble des résultats.
18. Keywords - Mots-clés 19. Distribution Statement - Diffusion
AIRSS, CCG. Ice Numerals, Regulations, Icebreakers
20. Security Classification (of this publication) 21. Security Classification (of this page) 22. Declassification (date) 23. No. of Pages 24. Price-Prix Classification de sécurité Classification de sécurité (de cette page) Déclassification (date) Nombre de pages (de cette publication) 75 + APP Unclassified Unclassified