Shei\f€'- J)olle-f/'/) o' -^e. Or^>J€cl ^Tcks Cocsf (joarcA DtC 1 tt 1996 U. S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard Report of the International Ice Patrol ^y j v;ui;j3 w- .d OcuanogroprJc Inslitutiofr In the North Atlantic lU)- ^ I 1995 Season Bulletin No. 81 CG-1 88-50 o/)e/vtf' J)o\lfhn o* rhe^ (Jr^>jed ^^aks Locsf (joans* DEC 1 8 1996 U. S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic ^UO I iUIW \^O^C;llu' g.-apnic Instilutiorr j 1 995 Season Bulletin No. 81 CG-1 88-50 Bulletin No. 81 REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ICE PATROL IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC Season of 1 995 CG-1 88-50 Forwarded herewith is Bulletin No. 8 1 of the International Ice Patrol, describing the Patrols's ser- vices, ice observations and conditions during the 1995 season. A. ROOTH Commander, U. S. Coast Guard Chief, Icebreaking Division International Ice Patrol 1995 Annual Report DEC 1 8 1996 Contents Introduction 3 Summary of Operations, 1995 5 Iceberg Reconnaissance and Communications 9 Discussion of Ice and Environmental Conditions 11 Acknowledgements 33 Appendix A: Nations Currently Supporting International Ice Patrol, 35 Appendix B: Ship Reports 36 Appendix C: Analysis of Limit-Setting Icebergs 45 Appendix D: Product User Survey 55 Appendix E: IIP Iceberg Limits Climatology 59 Cover: U. S. Re\'enue Cutter SENECA (1908-1942) Length: 240 feet Top Speed: 12 knots Armament: Two 6-pounder guns (largest carried by the Revenue Cutter Service in peacetime) The first Revenue Cutter assigned to Ice Patrol on the Grand Banks. SENECA was constructed in 1908, specifically for the purpose of dealing with derelict vessels abandoned at sea. In 1913. SENECA was detailed as the first Ice Patrol vessel for the Revenue Cutter Service (now the U.S. Coast Guard). The U.S. Navy performed the Ice Patrol starting immediately after the TITANIC disaster in 1912, and the International Ice Patrol was officially established in early 1914. Introduction This is the 81st annual report of the International Ice Patrol (IIP). It contains information on Ice Patrol operations, environmental conditions, and ice conditions for the 1995 IIP season. The U.S. Coast Guard conducts the Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic under the provisions of U.S. Code, Title 46, Sections 738, 738a through 738d, and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. The IIP is supported by 17 member nations (Appendix A). It was initiated shortly after the sinking of the RMS TITANIC on April 15, 1912 and has been conducted seasonally since that time. Commander, International Ice Patrol (CMP) is under the operational control of Commander, Coast Guard Atlantic Area. CUP directs the Ice Patrol from its Operations Center in Groton, Connecticut. IIP receives ice- berg location reports from ships and planes transiting its patrol area and conducts aerial Ice Reconnaissance Detachments (ICERECDETs) to sur- vey the southeastern, southern, and southwestern regions of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland for icebergs. IIP analyzes ice and environmental data and employs an iceberg drift and deterioration model to produce twice-daily ice- berg warnings, which are broadcast to mariners as ice bulletins and facsimile charts. IIP also responds to requests for Iceberg information. MP's ICERECDETs were based in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada during the 1995 season. Vice Admiral James M. Loy was Commander, Atlantic Area. CDR Ross L. Tuxhorn was Commander, International Ice Patrol. Summary of Operations, 1995 The 1 995 IIP year (October 1 , 1 994 - Sep- tember 30, 1995) marked the 81st anniversary of the International Ice Patrol, which was established February/, 1914. HP's operating area is enclosed by lines along 40 N, 52 N, 39 W and 57 W (Figure 1). HP's first preseason aerial ICERECDET of the year departed on January 23. The 1995 IIP season was opened on February 28 and from this date until August 2, 1995 an ICERECDET oper- ated from Newfoundland every other week. The season officially closed on August 1, 1995. HP's Operations Center in Groton, Con- necticut analyzed the iceberg sighting information from the ICERECDETs, ships, Canadian Ice Ser- vices (CIS) sea ice/iceberg reconnaissance flights, and other sources. Air reconnaissance, consist- ing of Coast Guard (IIP), Other Air Recon, and CIS was the major source of iceberg sighting re- ports this season, accounting for 66.7% of the ice- bergs sighted in 1995 (Table 1). Ships provided 18.3% of the iceberg sightings received by IIP in 1995. Their continued active participation indicates the value that they place on HP's service. In 1 995 302 ships of 41 different nations provided ice in- formation to IIP. This demonstrates the number of nations using the services of and contributing to IIP far exceeds the 1 7 member nations undenwrit- ing IIP under SOLAS 1974. Appendix B lists the ships that provided iceberg sighting reports, in- cluding reports of radar targets. In Appendix B, a single report may contain multiple targets. The largest contributor of air reconnais- sance reports was Provincial Airlines Limited (PAL). Their reports accounted for nearly all of the category "Other Air Recon" on Table 1. Pro- vincial Airlines Limited is a private company that provides aerial reconnaissance services for the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) year round, and for AES June through De- cember. DFO flights, which are designated to monitor the activities of fishing vessels, frequently carry them to areas with high iceberg concentra- Table 1 Sources of All Sightings Entered into HP's Drift Model Table 2 Sources of All Sightings South of 45°N Percent Sighting Source of Total Coast Guard (IIP) 15.4 Other Air Recon 34.8 Canadian AES 16.5 BAPS 14.9 Ships 18.3 Other 0.1 J ^V r Sighting Source Coast Guard (IIP) Other Air Recon Canadian AES BAPS Ships Other Percent of Total 55.5 23.4 0 0 21.1 0 \ ■N \^ / \. J 55 53 51 49 47 45 43 41 50 49 Newfoundland 42 — r- 200 M Flenis Ba Iks Cajr^ 20 )M _ 1 42 ^'^ 56 55^17 1740 39 54 53 52 51 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ 44 43 42 41 Figure 1 International Ice Patrol's Operation Area showing bathymetry of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland tions. The next largest contribution to the air re- connaissance total was from IIP ICERECDETs. IIP flights concentrate on defining the boundaries of the iceberg distribution (Appendix C). These are typically areas of low iceberg concentration. Table 2 shows the increased relative contribution of the IIP flights near the limits. BAPS sightings are icebergs detected north of 52 N phmarily by AES reconnaissance. These are passed to IIP by AES as the icebergs cross into the Ice Patrol op- erating area. AES acquired and relayed to IIP ice- berg information obtained during sea ice recon- naissance flights and a few flights dedicated solely to iceberg reconnaissance. During 1995, the IIP Operations Center received a total of 7962 target sightings within its operations area which were entered into HP's drift model. This is comparable to the 9496 target sightings during 1994. The 7962 targets entered into MP's drift model do not represent all of the targets reported to IIP Sightings of targets out- side HP's Area of Responsibility (AOR) were not entered into the model. Most of these were far to the north of MP's AOR in areas not covered by HP's model. Coastal iceberg sightings were also screened, and only those with the potential to drift into the trans-Atlantic shipping lanes were entered into the IIP model. Table 3 includes icebergs detected south of 48 N plus the number of icebergs which were predicted to drift across 48 N for each month of 1995. During the 1 995 ice year, an estimated 1432 icebergs drifted south of 48 N; whereas, during 1994, 1765 icebergs had drifted south of 48 N. Table 3 Number of Icebergs South of 48°N Number of Icebergs South of 48°N during 1995 \ Month Number OCT 0 NOV 0 DEC 0 JAN 0 FEB 43 MAR 385 APR 334 MAY 405 JUN 218 JUL 41 AUG 6 SEP 0 Total 1432 IIP classifies the severity of the ice sea- sons based on the historic iceberg counts of its entire 81 year history. Ice years with fewer than 300 icebergs crossing 48 N are defined as light ice years; those with 300 to 600 crossing 48 N as moderate; and those with more than 600 crossing 48 N as extreme (Appendix C). 1995 was an ex- treme year for iceberg conditions. The 1995 season was the third year that IIP used its iceberg Data Management and Pre- diction System (DMPS). This system, which Is nearly identical to the iceBerg Analysis and Pre- diction System (BAPS) used at the Canadian Ice Centre, Ottawa, combines an iceberg drift model with a deterioration model. The model uses wind, ocean current, and iceberg size data to predict the movement and deterioration of all ice bergs entered into DMPS. The drift prediction model uses a new historical current data base which is modified weekly using satellite-tracked ocean drift- ing buoy data, thus taking into account local, short- term, current fluctuations. Murphy and Anderson (1985) described and evaluated the drift model. The iceberg deterioration model uses daily sea surface temperature and wave height information from the U.S. Navy Fleet Numerical Meteorologi- cal and Oceanography Center (FNMOC) to pre- dict the melt of icebergs. Anderson (1983) and Hanson (1987) described the IIP deterioration model in detail. Eleven satellite-tracked ocean drifting buoys were deployed to provide current data for HP's iceberg drift model during the 1995 season. The buoys are similar in design to the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and were equipped with surface temperature sensors and a drogue centered at 50 meters. Drift data from the buoys are discussed in the IIP 1995 Drifting Buoy Atlas, which is available upon request. During the 1995 season, IIP successfully deployed 49 Air-deployable expendable BathyThermographs (AXBTs), which measure temperature with depth and transmit the data back to the aircraft. Temperature data from the AXBTs were sent to the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Center (METOC) in Halifax, Nova During the 1995 season, IIP successfully deployed 49 Air-deployable expendable BathyThermographs (AXBTs), which measure temperature with depth and transmit the data back to the aircraft. Temperature data from the AXBTs were sent to the Canadian fvleteorological and Oceanographic Center (METOC) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, the U.S. Naval Atlantic Meteorol- ogy and Oceanography Center (NLMOC) in Nor- folk, Virginia, and FNMOC for use as inputs into ocean temperature models. IIP directly benefits from AXBT deployments by having improved ocean temperature data provided to its iceberg deterioration model. IIP also provided weekly drift- ing buoy sea surface temperature (SST) and drift histories to METOC and NLMOC for use in water mass and SST analyses. Canada's Maritime Com- mand/Meteorological and Oceanographic Centre provided the AXBT probes for IIP use. IIP greatly appreciates the valuable support given by METOC for this program. The data collected significantly increases regional knowledge of circulation pat- terns and improves the capability to predict ice- berg deterioration. On April 15, 1995, IIP paused to remem- ber the 83rd anniversary of the sinking of the RMS TITANIC. During an ice reconnaissance patrol, two wreaths were placed near the site of the sink- ing to commemorate the nearly 1500 lives lost. Iceberg Reconnaissance and Communications During the 1995 Ice Patrol year, 106 air- craft sorties were flown in support of IIP. Of these, 47 were transit flights to St. John's, Newfoundland, MP's base of operations since 1989, and 43 were ice observation flights made to locate the southwestern, southern, and southeastern limits of icebergs. Thirteen logistics flights were required to support and maintain the patrol aircraft. Tables 4 and 5 show aircraft use for the 1995 ice year. MP's aerial ice reconnaissance was con- ducted with SLAR- and FLAR-equipped U.S. Coast Guard HC-130H aircraft. No HU-25B aircraft were used in 1995. The HC-130H air- craft used on Ice Patrol are based at Coast Guard Air Station Elizabeth City, North Caro- lina. The HU-25B aircraft available for Ice Pa- trol use are stationed at Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas. This was the third operational year for the FLAR. Analysis of the SLAR/FLAR combina- tion from 1993 and 1994 allowed IIP to in- crease search track spacing from 25 nautical miles (NM) to 30NM, resulting in a 20% in- crease in area covered without increasing trackline miles flown. IIP schedules aerial iceberg surveys ev- ery other week rather than every week. This is due to the ability of the SLAR and FLAR to detect and differentiate icebergs in all weather, combined with use of the iceberg drift and deterioration computer model to track icebergs in-between sightings. The HC-1 30H 'Hercules' aircraft has been the primary platform for Ice Patrol aerial re- connaissance since 1963, while the HU-25B has been used since 1 988. The extent of the Table 4 Aircraft Usage During the 1995 Ice Year Sorties \ Transit 47 Patrpl 43 Research 3 Fliqht Hours Looistics 13 Total 106 Transit 121.2 Patrol 276.9 Research 18.3 Logistics 22.7 Total 439.1 J V 9 Table 5 Iceberg Reconnaissance Sorties Month Sorties JAN 1 FEB 3 MAR 6 APR 8 MAY 11 JUN 7 JUL 6 AUG 1 TOTAL 43 Flight Hours 7.8 13.7 39.9 46.5 68.8 48.2 45.5 6.5 276.9 ■^ vZ iceberg distribution throughout the entire 1 995 season required the use of the HC-130H rather than the HU-25B. The total number of flight hours decreased from 576.6 hours in 1994 to 439.1 in 1994. The number of sorties decreased from 139 in 1994 to 106 in 1995. The largest decrease was in patrol sorties, which went from 70 in 1994 to 43 in 1995. This decrease reflects the generally smaller geographical area covered by icebergs in 1 995, requiring fewer flight hours to cover the limits of all known ice. Each day during the ice season IIP pre- pared and distributed ice bulletins at OOOOZ and 1 200Z to warn mariners of the southwest- ern, southern, and southeastern limits of ice- bergs. U. S. Coast Guard Communications Station Boston, Massachusetts, NMF/NIK, and Canadian Coast Guard Radio Station St. John's NewfoundlandA/ON were the primary radio stations responsible for the dissemina- tion of the ice bulletins. In addition the OOOOZ and 1200Z ice bulletin and safety broadcasts were delivered over the INf\/IARSAT-C SafetyNet via the AOR-W satellite. Other transmitting stations for the bulletins included METOC Halifax, Nova Scotia/CFH, Canadian Coast Guard Radio Station Halifax/VCS, Ra- dio Station Bracknel, UK/GFE, and U. S. Navy LCMP Broadcast Stations Norfolk, Virginia/ NAfVI, and Key West, Florida. IIP also prepared a daily facsimile chart, graphically depicting the limits of all known ice, for broadcast at 1600Z and 1810Z daily. In addition, the facsimile chart was placed on Comsat Corp's INMARSAT-A FAXMAIL Server for receipt at sea. U. S. Coast Guard Com- munications Station Boston/NIK assisted with the transmission of these charts. Canadian Coast Guard Radio Station St. John's New- foundlandA/ON and U. S. Coast Guard Com- munications Station Boston/NIK also provided special broadcasts as required. As in previous years, International Ice Patrol requested that all ships transiting the area of the Grand Banks report ice sightings, weather, and sea surface temperatures via Canadian Coast Guard Radio Station St. John's/VON, U, S. Coast Guard Communica- tions Station Boston/NIK, or INMARSAT-C code 42. Response to this request is shown in Table 6. Appendix B lists all contributors. IIP received relayed information from the fol- lowing sources during the 1995 ice year: Ca- nadian Coast Guard Marine Radio Station St. John's/VON; Canadian Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Centre/Ice Operations St. John's; Ice Centre Ottawa; Canadian Coast Guard Ma- rine Radio Station Halifax, Nova Scotia/VCS; ECAREG Halifax, Nova Scotia; U. S. Coast Guard Communications and Master Station Atlantic, Chesapeake, Virginia; U. S. Coast Guard Atlantic Area Command Center; and U. S. Coast Guard Automated Merchant Ves- sel Emergency Response/Operations Sys- tems Center, Martinsburg, WV. Commander, 10 Table 6 Iceberg and Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Reports Number of ships furnishing SST reports Number of SST reports received Number of ships furnishing ice reports Number of ice reports received First Ice Bulletin Last Ice Bulletin Length of Season (days) 34 346 302 876 281200ZFEB95 011200ZAUG95 155 International Ice Patrol extends a sincere thank you to all stations and ships which con- tributed reports. The vessel providing the most reports was the MA/ Atlant II, a Croatian flag vessel. 11 12 Discussion of Ice and Environmental Conditions Background The offshore branch of the Labrador Cur- rent is the main mechanism transporting ice- bergs south to the Grand Banks and the North Atlantic shipping lanes (figure 2). Its relatively cold water keeps the deterioration of icebergs to a minimum. Sea ice protects the icebergs from wave action, the major agent in iceberg deteriora- tion. If sea ice extends to the south and over the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, the ice- bergs will be protected longer as they drift south. When the sea ice edge retreats in the spring, large numbers of icebergs will be left behind in the vicinity of the Grand Banks. If the time of retreat of the sea ice edge is de- layed by below-normal air and sea surface temperatures, the icebergs will be protected from melt longer and be expected to survive to drift farther south. In these cases a longer than normal ice season can be expected. Less southerly sea ice extent or above nor- mal air and sea surface temperatures may result in a shorter season. Sea ice can impede the transport of ice- bergs. The degree depends on the concen- tration of the sea ice and the size of the ice- bergs. The greater the sea ice concentration, the greater the effect on iceberg drift. The larger the iceberg, the less sea ice affects its drift. The 1995 Season Figures 3 to 9 compare the sea ice edge during the 1 995 ice year to the mean sea ice edge. The mean sea ice edges were taken from Cote (1989) and represent a 25 year average (1962-1987). The ice edge (sea ice concentration > 1/10) is taken from the daily Ice Analysis from the Ice Centre, Ottawa. Figures 10 to 21 show the Ice Patrol Lim- its of All Known Ice (LAKI) and the daily sea ice edge on the 1 5th and the last day of each month during the ice season. The ice edge is taken from the Ice Centre, Ottawa FICN2 daily product. The edge plotted is a coarse numeric representation of the daily Ice Analysis. These figures show the distribution of all icebergs and radar contacts tracked by MP's model at the indicated times. Numerals are given for clar- ity for those one-degree squares where six or more targets are located. The following is a discussion of the ice conditions, comparing those ice conditions observed and modeled in 1995 with the twenty-year IIP climatological LAKI (see Ap- pendix E). December through February Through the period, sea ice growth along the Labrador Coast and in East Newfound- land waters appeared to be 2-4 weeks ahead of normal (Figures 3-5). The sea ice edges were observed further east and south than mean positions. At the end of February, 43 icebergs were south of 48°N and the reported LAKI (Figure 10) approximated the climato- logical median position for March 1 5, thus trig- gering the start ofthe Ice Patrol season on 28 February. March Throughout the month of March, a tongue of sea ice extended eastward to approximately 46°N, 47°W, implying significant surfact circu- 13 lation towards the east. The reported LAKI positions for March (Figures 11-12) extended eastward to 40°W, which is between the 25th percentile and extreme clinnatological LAKI's on the east and south. There were 385 ice- bergs south of 48°N and the southern extent of the LAKI at the end of March was 40°N. April For the first half of the month the sea ice tongue remained extended to 46°N, 47°W, after which the sea ice rapidly melted and the edge receded to the north and the Labrador- Newfoundland coastlines. HP's LAKI was re- ported near the 25th percentile climatological LAKI for the entire period (Figures 13-14). There were 334 icebergs south of 48°N in April. July Reported LAKI (Figures 19-20) also matched up well with the median climatologi- cal LAKI for July. There were 39 icebergs south of 48°N by the end of July. On 1 Au- gust, the Ice Patrol season closed, with the LAKI (Figure 21 ) lying north of 45°N and west of 48°W. May Sea ice destruction occurred at normal rate. However, remnants persisted along the coast of Newfoundland. The reported LAKI on 15 May (Figure 15) fell between the clima- tological median and 25th percentile on the east. However, on the south, it was near the extreme climatological limit. At the end of May the reported LAKI (Figure 16) reflected the median climatological limit on the east and the 25th percentile climatological limit in the south- ern area. There were 405 icebergs that crossed 48°N in May. June The sea ice edge retreated above 52°N (Figure 9). The IIP LAKI (Figures 17-18) ap- proximated the median climatological LAKI in the east and the exreme climatological LAKI in the south. There were 218 icebergs south of 48°N. 14 References Anderson, I. Iceberg Deterioration Model, Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic, 1983 Season, CG-1 88-38, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington D.C., 1983. Cote, P.W., Atmospheric Environment Service (AES), Ice Limits Eastern Canadian Sea- board, 1989, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3. Hanson, W.E., Operational Forecasting Concerns Regarding Iceberg Deterioration, Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic, 1987 Season, CG-1 88-42, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., 1987. Murphy, D.L. and I. Anderson, Evaluation of the International Ice Patrol Drift Model, Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic, 1985 Season, CG-1 88-40, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., 1985. 15 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 43 41 3? 52 " '' 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 3^ Figure 2 The Labrador Current, the main mechanisnri for transporting icebergs South to the Grand Banks 16 55' 50' 45- Sea Ice Conditions JANUARY 16, 1995 1/10 or greater sea ice concentration (Redrawn from Ice Center Onawa. 1995 1962-87 mean sea ice edge (Redrawn from Open Water Ice Center Ottawa. 1989) 17 Sea Ice Conditions FEBRUARY13, 1995 55" 1/10 or greater sea ice concentration (Redrawn from Ice Center Ottawa. 1995 1 962 - 87 mean sea ice edge (Redrawn from Ice Center Ottawa, 1989) 50* 45* i ,4 — 50' Figure 5 55" 50' 45" Sea Ice Conditions MARCH 13, 1995 1/10 or greater sea ice concentration (Redrawn from Ice Center Ottawa. 1 995 ) 1962 - 87 mean sea ice edge (Redrawn from Ice Center Ottawa. 1989) -V-' Figure 6 18 55" 50' 45" 19 20 Figure 10 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 28 Feb 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge 49 41 Newfoundland 43 10 9 y ^' i) 4 1 42 11 ! 6 /> 17 8 49 j^ 18 ^ ^ = 18 /9 '■■ 11 \ i ^11 \ 9^^ ^ ; 4 y 6 ▲ a\ 1 .^ >k A^ ^x X \ "1 1 1 i x^: .4 X y p^ S V /'^ K y /^ > \ S^ A ^^^ X X 43 '' ^« 56 54 53 52 61 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 A Iceberg X Radar Target N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares witfi 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 r^eter Bathymetric Curve 21 Figure 11 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 15 Mar 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge 55 53 24 24 51 49 Newfoundland 39 38 1 \ 1 - \ 19 8 \ \ --r— \1 11 12 I 59 l\l 6 A b A. A % r 43 36^ 8 16 c u X A ^A 6 V 1— Ai^ '4M A 6 -41^ 11 i 15 . 12 21 r A A " - 6 ,s\ 1 .^ ■ A A A ▲ A ▲ »* A X A t4 ■ / / ^/ A A \ K A //' 4 A ^/ \ X X / 1 k i( ,/^ ■ ^ \ / ^ " X _ '' ^^ 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 A Iceberg X Radar Target N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (tor squares with 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 22 Figure 12 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 31 Mar 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge 51 49 47 45 43 4" Newfoundland 39 it ' \. 111 jSI 1- -— A-i ^_ 1 7 i 6 A s s \ 19 19 36 8 \ i 15 '.1\1 'a 11 11 8 \ 18 N34 \ 10 A ■ >[^h 6 >: r-* i . ■n /f k ▲ 7 1,3 'A A 1 A 7 14 A A A^ • / 9 9 8 6 i 1 K- 8 12 11 A - V- ▲ ^ / f \ V 4^A A i y \ ^ A^ / 38 ^^ 56 55 54 .. 40 ^4 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 ^ Iceberg X Radar Target Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares witti 6 or more total Iceberg/radar targets) 23 Figure 13 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 15 Apr 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge ^' 56 55 54 53 52 51 A Iceberg X Radar Target 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 Limit of All Known Ice 40 Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares with 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) 24 Figure 14 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 30 Apr 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge ^'^ 56 55 54 3^ 53 52 51 A Iceberg X Radar Target 44 43 42 41 40 50 49 48 47 46 45 Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares with 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) 25 Figure 15 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 15 May 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge 57 52 51 55 39/56 53 51 47 45 43 41 14 Newfoundland U 27Mi7 11 12 11 11 24 11 57 56 55 54 ^ Iceberg X Radar Target \ \ \ \ \ A i \ i 7 \ \ — 15 ^A ▲ A —X- ' A A )y 4 4 12 i 0 ..-^ ^A / r i 4 ^A i / A A A. X / 6 / / 4 k f / 39 ^2 51 50 49 4Q ^^ 4g 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares with 6 or more total Icebirg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Cun/e 26 Figure 16 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 31 May 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge ^^ 55 54 53 52 5I 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 A Iceberg X Radar Target N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares with 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 27 Figure 17 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 15 Jun 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge 55 53 51 12, Newfoundland 25 47 45 43 41 ▲ v. --A. s s A c '{ ^3^ .7 A \v 9 8 13 A ' A~ ' 11 A A ^ 7 A 8 \\a ^ \ A A A / + ^ X A r ' '' 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 A Iceberg X Radar Target N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (tor squares with 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 28 Figure 18 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 30 Jun 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge ^' 56 55 c. .. 40 ^^ 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 39 ^ Iceberg X Radar Target N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares with 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 29 Figure 19 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 15 Jul 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge 55 53 51 47 45 43 41 )9 25 Newfoundland s 7 t s V 10 r i i A \ k^ ^ aa \ lj2 A > A 6 A k \ £ 4 ^'A\ A', 1 i— -A- ^ A '^f— A A 6> A A A ' *r A A 4^ A ^ -^ ■L- ^^ 7X— 1 X X '' ^^ 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 A Iceberg X Radar Target N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares witfi 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice — Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 30 Figure 20 International Ice Patrol Plot for 0000 GMT 31 Jul 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge 57 55 ^, Newfoundland 46 53 51 49 47 45 43 14' M' 1^ \ V li 1 1^ x^ \ vlLi Ja| \ s^ S-+- A \ - Wj~ W- H~\~ -?■ ^ WT ^ Tj" 1 Tn ■ 41 39 46 56 55 54 53 52 51 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 A Iceberg X Radar Target N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares with 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 31 Figure 21 International Ice Patrol Plot for 1200 GMT 01 Aug 95 Showing Observed and Modeled Iceberg Positions and Sea Ice Edge 57 52 51 50 49 48 47 Newfoundland 53 51 49 47 45 ■-^ i, ^ SaJ . \ 7 6 \ \ r k \ r XA / 7 / t K A J_ C" t k f k t / / — ^ - n J 43 41 39 '' 5^ 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 A Iceberg X Radar Target N Number of Icebergs/Radar Targets Per One Degree Rectangle (for squares with 6 or more total iceberg/radar targets) Limit of All Known Ice Sea Ice Edge 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 32 Acknowledgments Commander, International Ice Patrol acknowledges the assistance and information provided by: Atmospheric Environment Service of Environment Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans Navy / NOAA / USCG Joint Ice Center U.S. Naval Fleet Numerical Meteorological and Oceanography Center U.S. Naval Atlantic Meteorology and Oceanography Center U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center Coast Guard Atlantic Area Staff First Coast Guard District Communications Center First Coast Guard District Operations Center We extend our sincere appreciation to the staffs of these organizations for their excellent support during the 1995 International Ice Patrol season: Canadian Coast Guard Radio Station St. John's, NewfoundlandA/ON Ice Operations St. John's, Newfoundland Air Traffic Control Gander, Newfoundland Canadian Forces Gander and St. John's, Newfoundland St. John's Flight Services Office U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Elizabeth City, North Carolina National Meteorological Center, Maryland It is also important to recognize the outstanding efforts of the personnel at the International Ice Patrol: CDR R. L. Tuxhorn MST1 V. L. Fogt CDR B. E. Viekman MST1 R. A. McKnight Dr. D. L. Murphy MST2 C. L. Channel Mr. G. F Wright MST2 W. S. Barton LT G. A. Trivers MST2 J. F Cole LT R.T.Haines MST2 E. M. Fusco MSTC J. F Fisher MST3 J. T. Sobiesczyk YN1 C. B. Peters MST3 B. B. Keating MST1 D. L. Alexander MST3 M. L. McClain MST3 T T Krein This report was produced using Adobe Illustrator^*^ V4 and Adobe^*^ Pagemaker V5 for Windows® by MST3 Bruce B. Keating and LT Robert T Haines. TM 33 34 Appendix A Nations Currently Supporting International Ice Patrol BELGIUM NORWAY CANADA PANAMA DENMARK POLAND FINLAND SPAIN FRANCE SWEDEN GREECE UNITED KINGDOM ITALY UNITED STATES JAPAN GERMANY NETHERLANDS 35 Ship Name Appendix B Ship Reports Ship Flag Ice Report SST* Report ABBEY ABITIBI CLAIBORNE ABITIBI CONCORD ABITIBI MACADO ABITIBI ORINOCa„^.a ACHILLES ADA GORTHON AG FARQUARSON AGIODEKTINI AIVIK ALAM ACAPULCO ALAM SENANG ALEKSANDER KOLMPERE ALEXIS ALLOUETTE ARROW ALPHA AMKE ANATOLI ANEMI ANN HARVEY APJ ANJLI APOLLONIA LION AQUARIUS AROSA ARCADIA I ARCTIC ARGOSY ARINAARCTICA ARMIA LUDOWA ASL SANDERLING ATALAYA ATLANTA FOREST ATLANTIC CLIPPER ATLANTIC COMPANION ATLANTIC CONVEYER ATLANTIC ODYSSEY ATLANTIC TRIDENT ATLANTIS SPIRIT * Sea Surface Temperature CAYMAN ISLANDS GERMANY LIBERIA LIBERIA GERMANY PANAMA SWEDEN UNITED STATES GREECE CANADA MALAYSIA MALAYSIA ESTONIA MALTA NORWAY LIBERIA GERMANY MALTA GREECE CANADA INDIA GREECE ITALY CYPRUS PANAMA CANADA INDIA DENMARK POLAND CANADA UNITED STATES CANADA PANAMA SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM CANADA CYPRUS CYPRUS 36 5 2 3 4 8 47 3 1 8 Ship Name Ship Flag Ice Report SST Report ATLANT1 ATLANT 2 BAIA DE CRIS;^ BAKENGRACHT BAKKAFOSS BALLERINA BARBRO BERGE FISTER BERGEN SEA BERGON BILICE BOW HUNTER BRANDENBERG BRIGIT MAERSK BRISTER BRITISH STEEL BROUWERGRACHT BRUM LES BURUM LES CAMILLA CANMAR CONQUEST CANMAR ENTERPRISE CANMAR EUROPE CANMAR PRIDE CANMAR GLORY CANMAR INTREPID CANMAR TRIUMPH CANMAR VALIANT CANMAR VICTORY CAPE ROGER CAPE VIOLET CAROLA 1 CASTILLO DE AREVALO CAST BEAR CAST BEAVE CAST ELK CAST LYNX CAST POLAR BEAR CAST WOLF CECILIA DESGAGNES CETRA CANADA N JHL^>.^^»Bii££ES«».j^e2WSSH»>' BAHAMAS MALTA RUMANIA NETHERLANDS ANTIGUA/BARBUDA NORWAY SINGAPORE NORWAY NORWAY SWEDEN MALTA NORWAY GERMANY DENMARK UNKNOWN HONG KONG NETHERLANDS UNKNOWN UNKNOWN FINLAND UNITED KINGDOM BAHAMAS BERMUDA GREECE BERMUDA UNKNOWN UNITED KINGDOM CROATIA UNITED KINGDOM CANADA PANAMA ... CYPRUS BAHAMAS UNKNOWN CROATIA SINGAPORE UNKNOWN BAHAMAS SINGAPORE CANADA CANADA 7 1 1 1 38 13 1 lT 2 6 1 14 2 9 1 1 4 1 5 10 2 3 6 2 2 1 * Sea Surface lemperature 37 Ship Name Ship Flag Ice Report SST Report CETRA CORONA CANADA 1 4„„.. CHALLENGER PATROL UNKNOWN 2 CHANNEL PROSPERITY PHILLIPINES 1 2 CHEBUCTO SEA CANADA 1 CICERO CANADA 3 COLUMBIA VANUATU 1 COMPANION EXPRESS SWEDEN 2 1 CONTICARIB CYPRUS 1 CONCORDIA " ■■ ■ — ^m--- NORWAV 3 ^^^MHB' CORNELIS VEROLME LUXUMBERG 1 CORNER BROOK SWEDEN 1 ^ -^P^jji CRYSTAL HARMONY BAHAMAS 1 CSS HUDSON CANADA 1 '"^^^^mhI^WBWWWw CYGNUS CANADA 1 DAGEID 'IHHW'^ BAHAMAS 1 DAGHILD NORWAY 1 DES GROSELLIERS CANADA 3 >^.. .".-«■ DMITRIY DONSKOY RUSSIA 2 DOBROTA UNKNOWN 1 ^ilillllipi|ip^ DOMODYEDOVO RUSSIA 1 DONAU ORE CHINA 6 DUBROVNIK MALTA 1 EDWARD CORNWALLIS CANADA 3 ELLISPONTOS CYPRUS 5 3 EMERALD ST^R '^-■--^-■--■■'^^-■-^■^^^''^^^'^^^ CANADA - -2'^- *""'^SB EMILS CYPRUS 1 FAITH IV SINGAPORE 1 5 ^ FEDERAL AGNO PHILIPPINES 2 FEDERAL MACKENZIE HONG KONG 1 FEDERAL MANITOU NORWAY 2 FEDERAL MATANE NORWAY 5 "^^K FEDERAL POLARIS LIBERIA 1 FEDERAL SAGUENAY LIBERIA 1 FETISH FINNFIGHTER FIRST LADY FROTARGENTINA FURUNES GENERAL CABAL GENOVA GOLDEN SHIELD DENMARK BAHAMAS BAHAMAS BRAZIL PANAMA PHILIPPINES ITALY PANAMA 1 15 1 2 1 2 5 1 * Sea Surface lemperature 38 Ship Name Ship Flag Ice Report SST Report HELLENIC CONFIDENCE ^^s» CYPRUS 1 "^'^^"Ijjjjjjjjjj^^ HENRY LARSON CANADA 3 HERCEGOVINA ^■■■■■1 MALTA H ■■■■■B HMCS MORESBY CANADA 3 26 HMCS PRESERVER """^^IHJBI CANADA fllMHHMHHI ■■b HOFSJOKULL ICELAND '^^ 4 HUDSON CANADA ^^^SBm/m^msim. 3 HYPHESTOS LIBERIA 1 IMPERIAL ACADIA CANADA .■■■■id ■■■1 INDEPENDANT PIONEER GERMANV f -t INGRID GORTHON ^aHMHiSWEDEN jMir^i ■^— IH IRA LIBERIA IRVING ARCTIC WSSM CANADA ■■■■B 1 ■■■■H IRVING ESKIMO CANADA _^^^^ 11 ISLAND GEM Jliilil^^ GREECE "TBBF" 4 flHHHI GRIZZLY GROTON HARP HASKERLAND HELLENIC COI HENRY LARSC HERCEGOVINi HMCS MORES HMCS PRESEI HOFSJOKULL HUDSON HYPHESTOS IMPERIAL ACA INDEPENDAN1 INGRID GORTl IRA IRVING ARCTK IRVING ESKIM' ISLAND GEM ISLAND SKIPPER IVANUATU DERBENYEV IVORY J.C. PHILLIPS J.E. BERNIER JEAN LYKES JERRY NEWBERRY JIM KILABUK JON GORTHON KAWA KAPITAN STANKOV KAPITONAS A LUCKA KAPITONAS GUDIN KAPITONAS MESCERIAKOV KAPITONAS REUTOV KAPITONAS VAVILOV KARINA DANICA KINGUK KIROVOGRAD KISTA ARCTICA KLYKACH KNIEPSAND MALTA UNITED STATES CANADA NETHERLANDS CYPRUS CANADA MALTA 1 CANADA CANADA ICELAND CANADA LIBERIA CANADA GERMAN SWEDEN LIBERIA CANADA CANADA GREECE GREECE RUSSIA CYPRUS CANADA CANADA UNITED STATES CANADA CANADA SWEDEN BAHAMAS RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA LITHUANIA LITHUANIA RUSSIA DENMARK CANADA UKRAINE DENMARK RUSSIA CYPRUS 2 f 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1" 1 1 10 1 8 4 1 1 1 2 1 18 Sea Surface lemperature 39 Ship Name Ship Flag Ice Report ssr Report KOELN EXPRESS SINGAPORE 1 ..=,.:-i,s3E:: LA BRIANTAIS FR. ANTARCTIC TERR. 14 13 LA SALLE 1 UNKNOWN 1 M LACKENBY BAHAMAS 1 LAKE CARLING UNITED STATES 4 LAKE CHAMPLAIN PANAMA 9 LAKE ERIE _ _ , __„ MALAYSIA 14 23 LAKE MICHIGAN MALAYSIA 2 LARINA Wmtl^m ■f NORWAY 8 '^■■■l LAS BOLINAS CANADA 3 LASISA LITHUANIA 2 ^M LAURA HELENA CYPRUS 3 LE CHENE CANADA 1 M LE SAULE NO. 1 CANADA 2 LET KIEVU UNKNOWN 2 ..^ LIVEZENI RUMANIA 1 LOTILA ^ . FINLAND ._,_ 1 3 LOUIS ST LAURENT LUCKY SAILOR LUYBLINO M. HASS MADREDEUS MAERSK HOUSTON MALIK II MARGIT GORTHON MARIA MARINE HAWK MARSHAL ROKOSSOVSKIY MASS WIT MATAK MEDALLION MERCY VENTURE METTE MAERSK MICHAEL J MIGHTY SERVANUATUT MISS JACQUELINE IV MISTY WAVE MONTEREY MONTREAL SENATOR MOR CANADA MOR EUROPE " CANADA MALTA UNKNOWN BAHAMAS CYPRUS GREECE VANUATU SWEDEN NORWAY DENMARK RUSSIA UNKNOWN CYPRUS DENMARK CANADA DENMARK UNITED STATES NETHERLANDS CANADA UNKNOWN GREECE CANADA CYPRUS CYPRUS 1 1 2 3 1 1 5 4 2 1 1 1 3 5 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 * Sea Surface Temperature 40 Ship Name Ship Flag Ice Report SST* Report B NORWAY 1 ^^WBM NEDLLOYD HOORN NETHERLANDS 1 NORQUEST BAHAMAS iHBBHi NORTHERN ENTERPRISE BAHAMAS 1 NORTHERN VOYAGER JHH HBKUNITED STATES "^ ™J.-™.,:»»^,.-Jfei^^p|jp||||p|||| MOR U.K. MSC SABRINA NEPTUNE GARNET NANDU NCC JI2 NEDLLC NORQL NORTH NORTH NORTHERN PRINCESS NORTH MARCHIONESS NOSAC TANABATA OAK OCEANBREEZE ODRANES OLYMPIC ARMOUR II OMISALJ MAR OOCL ASSURANCE OOCL BRAVERY ORAGREEN PALMGRACHJ,! PARIZEAU PARKGRACHT PATSY & SONS PAVEL VAVILOV PETKA POKKINEN POL AMERICA PROBO BARO PROBO GULL PROTECTOR 2 PUNICA PUTIVL RAVENSCRAIG RED ROSE RHEA ROJEN ROMO MAERSK SAGA TIDE SAGA WIND SASKATCHEWAN PIONEER CYPRUS PANAMA SINGAPORE LIBERIA NORWAY NETHEF BAHAM/ BAHAM/ UNITED CANADA GREECE LIBERIA BAHAMAS UNITED STATES BAHAMAS GREECE MALTA HONG KONG HONG KONG BAHAMAS NETHERLANDS CANADA NETHERLANDS UNITED STATES RUSSIA MALTA FINLAND PANAMA NORWAY SINGAPORE CYPRUS LIBERIA RUSSIA BAHAMAS CYPRUS GREECE BULGARIA . DENMARK NORWAY HONG KONG CANADA 2 1 1 4 1 1 10 1 18 14 1 1 1 5 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 * Sea Surface Temperature 41 Ship Name Ship Flag Ice Report SST* Report SEA DANIEL SWEDEN 1 6 i SEA PEARL BAHAMAS 4 SENTOSA CYPRUS 2 ^^ SERGEI LEGAR UNKNOWN 1 SILVER SEAS II UNKNOWN 1 ^ "1 SIR HUMPREY GILBERT CANADA 3 SIR JOHN FRANKLIN CANADA 15 ^.«^»-arae .IMMiMK: 12.5 Very Large 2.8 General ':liPliPSii^ 48.5 ^ -< ^■^^■1 w Conclusion The results from this work have yielded a better understanding of the contributing surveil- lance sources and the final fates of the limit-set- ting icebergs. In the 1995 Season, 3180 icebergs were entered in the IIP iceberg drift model, of which 144 made it through the IIP operations area to set the LAKI. If the 1995 Season can be considered typical, then the great majority of icebergs (95%), which pass south of 52°N latitude, melt before they approach near the LAKI. A significant finding of this study is that ap- proximately half of the limit-setting icebergs were undetected before being found near the LAKI by the various surveillance sources, primarily IIP re- connaissance. For this to happen, the icebergs had to either make it through the gauntlet of re- connaissance undetected or be created in the re- gion near the LAKI. If the latter is considered, it implies that the splitting of icebergs into two or more "pieces" as they journey south, and espe- cially in the vicinity of the LAKI, is an important process of their melt. Both deductions exceed the scope of this study, however, are ripe for further investigation. But, regardless of how they get there, the fact that these icebergs are found at the LAKI gives impetus to IIP reconnaissance in this region. 47 References Anderson, I. Iceberg Deterioration Model, Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic, 1983 Season, CG-1 88-38, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C., 1983. 48 Chart 1a Initial Sighting Positions of Limit-Setting Icebergs from USCG (IIP) Reconnaissance (CG-1501/CG-1504) 57 55 53k 51 49 47 45 43 39 Newfoundland 46 39 n Y TTM-I Ia II I I ' — ~ — * 1 I \\ ^^^^^^ J I I "' 1 1 A I I ▲ I - A -^ A -I A_ L_ 1 A AA A ^ K_ ,A U r^T ^ r ^1 A k A 1 I r~ vT*^ r A^' 39 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 A Iceberg 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 39 49 Chart 1b Initial Sighting Positions of Limit-Setting Icebergs from Other Air Reconnaissance, Provincial Airlines, Ltd.(GPCD) 51 49 47 45 43 41 39 ^'rxiJJ^ sokjJ-Jii 49 / ^-pV^ S / Newfoundland ivv/ ^ 48 / Sl__ ▲ -2 ▲ A ^^tfe^T i A A 46 I L/l A A A A 45 1 — LJL__L ▲ A 44 -~--J~-Al___\ 43iLJiTirr ▲ 42iLrrrr] "^/J4-4-L 40 /---4--_jL|' 39 f---4---^_l( 38 Ullllj^ " 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 A Iceberg 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 40 50 Chart 1c Initial Sighting Positions of Limit-Setting Icebergs from Canadian AES Reconnaissance (GCFR) 51 49 47 45 43 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 Iceberg 200 Meter Batfiymetric Curve 51 Chart 1d Initial Sighting Positions of Limit-Setting Icebergs from BAPS Bergs Crossing 52°N (BX52N) ^' 55 52 rpf^Bf^ 53 51 49 47 45 ' 51 y%\__ A H > ■~"A 1 A^ \ 50 i^^^C-J-__ 49 / ^^^>^ \- / Newfoundland 1 46 / \—~L___ 45 /—--/---_[ 44 ^--Ll____ 43 l~~JI ^^ i — +---L- 41 /— J-_iL__ 40 i~--jL_J__ 39 /-— J-— LJ 38 L— L_L_[^ 43 41 39 ^' ^6 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 A Iceberg 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 40 52 Chart 1e Initial Sighting Positions of Limit-Setting Icebergs from Ship Reports 49 47 45 43 41 39 '' '' « 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 Iceberg 200 Meter Bathymetric Curve 53 54 Appendix D Product User Survey MST3 Tristan T. Krein Introduction During the 1 995 ice season, a product user survey was sent to trans-Atlantic mariners to help determine the quality and importance of our ser- vices in the eyes of our customers. The survey was transmitted to the mariner by the same means as the Ice Patrol's products, twice via INMARSAT- C and once by high frequency (HF) radio facsimile. The first INMARSAT survey, transmitted May 11 over the AOR-W satellite, netted a total of 103 re- sponses. The second INMARSAT survey, sent August 3, brought an additional 85 responses, with the August 1 facsimile broadcast yielding only 3. The total of 191 responses was a sevenfold in- crease of returns in comparison to a similar sur- vey conducted by mailing questionnaires to ship- owners in 1993. Although the vast majority of re- sponses were by ships that actively utilized IIP products, 7 unanswered surveys were returned by vessels not normally operating in the area. The survey was drafted in 1995 with the help of Dr. Robert Armacost, the management consultant who directed the IIP Cost and Opera- tional Effectiveness Analysis. The following is a general breakdown of the 18 questions asked, along with the number of applicable responses given in percentages. Comments have been in- cluded to provide further insight on some incon- sistencies or ambiguities encountered with re- sponses, questions, or methods used to tally re- sults. Also note that the figures presented reflect the 184 surveys answered, and disregard the 7 returned blank. Survey and Data Collection When you are operating in the IIP area (40°N-52°N, 39°W-57°W): 1. "Do you receive the IIP SAFETYNET BULLE- TIN at least once a day?" 66%-Always 19%-U§ually 8%-Sometimes 2%-Never 4%-Unsure 2. "Do you receive the IIP SITOR BULLETIN at least once a day?" 33%-Always 22%-Usually 1 3%-Sometimes 1 9%-Never 13%-Unsure 3. "Do you receive the IIP NAVTEX BULLETIN at least once a day?" 61%- Always 22%-Usually 10%-Sometimes 5%-Never 2%-Unsure 4. "Do you receive the IIP HF FACSIMILE CHART every day?" 36%-Always 26%-Usually 21%-Sometimes 11%-Never 5%-Unsure 55 5. "Do you record the Limits of All Known Ice from voice broadcasts?" 25%-Always 13%-Usually 20%-Sometimes 39%- Never 3%-Unsure NOTE: Only vessels equipped to receive INMARSAT and radio FAX transmissions would have received a survey. Any ship relying on voice broadcasts as a main/sole source of message traf- fic would have been unaware of the survey's ex- istence and unable to participate. 6. "Do you keep the Bulletin or Ice Chart avail- able in the pilot house?" 88%-Aiways 6%-Usually 1%-Sometimes 2%-Never 3%-Unsure 7. "Do you plot the Limits of All Known Ice on your navigation chart?" 88%-Always 8%-Usually 1%-Sometimes 2%-Never 1%-Unsure 8. "Do you plot the location of icebergs on your navigation charts?" 80%-Always 13%-Usually 5%-Sometimes 1%- Never 1%-Unsure 9. "Do you change your course on a regular basis to pass outside the Limits of All Known Ice?" 51%- Always 28%-Usually 18%-Sometimes 3%-Never 1 %-Unsure NOTE: Without clarification it is difficult to deter- mine whether some ships do not alter their course because they don't need to, don't want to, or are unable to. 10. "Does your course take you inside the Limits of All Known Ice?" 7%-Always 15%-Usually 44%-Sometimes 31%-Never 4%-Unsure NOTE: The question does not specify between altered and original courses. 1 1 . "Do you report iceberg sightings to the IIP?" 54%-Always 13%-Usually 13%-Sometimes 9%-Never 2%-Unsure NOTE: The other 10% answered that they had "never seen any" icebergs. Without such clarifi- cation, it is difficult to ascertain whether the ships answering "Sometimes" or "Never" even see ice- bergs, or if they just don't report the ones they see. 12. "Do you make weather reports with sea surface temperatures in the IIP area?" 38%-Always 15%-Usually 19%-Sometimes 24%-Never 4%-Unsure 56 13. "How valuable are the IIP products?" 98%-Very Valuable 2%-Somewhat Valuable 0%-Not Valuable 14. "Please rank the importance of the IIP products (1=most important, 4=least)" 1.4- Ice Bulletin 1 .8 - NAVTEX Broadcast 1.8 - HF Facsimile Ice Chart 3.1 -Voice Broadcast NOTE: The figures presented are averages. Many mariners misunderstood the question and rated each product on a scale of 1 to 4. Others as- signed a value to only some of the products and left the others blank. Since no one can reason- ably guess a response, and assigning a 0 would unfairly lower averages (thereby raising the level of importance), the blanks were disregarded and each product was averaged individually by divid- ing its total with the number of figures it actually received. The products rated instead of ranked were averaged with the figures the mariners as- signed them. Because of these inconsistencies, the actual figures presented should not be taken too literally but do provide a valid general com- parison. See comment for question 5 in regards to popularity of voice broadcasts. 15. "How many transits do you make through the IIP area each year during March through September?" NOTE: 4.1 transits was the average, with 20 tansits being the highest and 0 the lowest. 16. "Please indicate the type of vessel that you usually operate." 30% - Bulk 18% - General Cargol 4% - Container 9% - Oil Tanker 7% -Other Tanker 7% - Reefer 4% - Unspecified 3% - RO/RO 1% - Research, Heavylift, OBO, Passenger, Multipurpose (Less than 1%) - Fishing, Sailing, Live stock, Cable Layer, LPG 17. "Compared to conditions when there are no icebergs and IIP is not in operation, please esti- mate the number of extra hours of enroute time that are required on an average transit to avoid icebergs or to remain outside the Limit of All Known Ice." NOTE: 16.1 Hours was the average time for the 100 responses to this question, with a low of 0 hours and a high of 96 hours. 18. "Based on your experience, how accurate is the Limit of All Known Ice?" 37% - Extremely accurate (icebergs never seen outside the Limit of All Known Ice) 54% - Very accurate (icebergs occasion- ally seen outside the Limit of All Known Ice) 9% - Somewhat accurate (icebergs usu- ally seen outside the Limit of All Known Ice) 0% - Never accurate (icebergs always seen outside the Limit of All Known Ice) COMMENTS A space was provided at the end of the survey to allow for comments or suggestions. Al- though the majority of these were left blank, 59 generic comments were received in praise of our services and imploring their continuation. Sug- gestions included involving more merchant ships to do ice reporting, extending the period of ser- vices, and even installing radar reflectors on ice- bergs. A few comments were made in reference to slightly exaggerated limits or individual icebergs not being located in the positions they were esti- mated to be. This suggests a tendency of some mariners to mistake prognostic estimates as fact, a potentially dangerous misconception we seek to avoid. 57 58 Appendix E UP Iceberg Limits Climatology (1975-1995) CDR Bruce E. Viekman and MST3 Kenneth D. Baumer Introduction International Ice Patrol (IIP) provides a service which monitors the extent of the iceberg danger in the vicinity of the Grand Banks of New- foundland. This danger area is passed to inter- ested shipping as a broadcast Limit of All Known Ice (LAKI). In order to define this limit as accu- rately as possible, IIP uses reports from various sources. These include icebergs detected by IIP and Canadian aircraft reconnaissance and reports from passing vessels. The path of reported ice- bergs since sighting is predicted using the mo- mentum balance for each target (Mountain, 1 980), and the deterioration of each iceberg is estimated using wave and sea surface temperature analy- ses from U. S. Navy models (Anderson, 1983). IIP watchstanders attempt to correlate new sightings with prior observations through the pro- cess of resights (Viekman, 1993). The broadcast LAKI therefore reflects all iceberg sightings en- tered into the model, MP's knowledge of the oce- anic circulation, and estimations of drift based on other environmental products, and the cumulative actions of IIP watchstanders. The iceberg limits vary considerably through the ice season and between seasons. IIP has historically tracked the number of icebergs crossing 48 degrees North latitude, and this"count" forms the principal measure of iceberg season severity (Trivers, 1994; see Anderson, 1993 for a comprehensive review of the methods used to de- termine this statistic). This count has the advan- tage of providing a single value for the season se- verity, but suffers in other ways. It does not ad- dress the area covered by the iceberg population, which impacts the trackline deviation required for mariners to stay clear of the danger zone. The extent of the LAKI also drives aircraft requirements for IIP reconnaissance. The goal of this work is to determine a cli- matology for the IIP Limits of All Known Ice using historical records. The variability of the LAKI will be considered through the typical IIP ice season using the 21 year period from 1 975 to 1 995, inclu- sive. This period was selected for two reasons. First, the LAKI for this period were calculated us- ing a computerized vector drift (1974 to 1979) or dynamical force balance model (1979 to 1995). These models were used to track most iceberg reports, even those far from the LAKI (Anderson, 1993). Secondly, LAKI from this period are reli- ably presented in the IIP Annual Report. Before 1 974, the IIP Annual Report shows only the sighted position of icebergs, and does not give the results of the manual vector addition used to predict ice- berg movement. Two prior studies have investigated iceberg climatological limits. The Pilot Charts for the North Atlantic Ocean (Defense Mapping Agency 1992) show a 'mean maximum iceberg limit' on each month's chart, along with unusual iceberg reports. The source of this limit is not known, and publica- tion of the North Atlantic Pilot Chart ceased in 1992. Mudry (1991) prepared a climatology based on IIP sightings for the period of 1960 to 1982, the period where visual aircraft reconnais- sance was used. While this data provided a com- prehensive frequency of aircraft sightings, it did not include the iceberg drift predictions by IIP A climatology for sea ice distribution for the period 1962-1987 was completed by Cote (1989). Methods The Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) as pub- lished in the IIP Annual Report were used in this study Since 1 980, iceberg density and limits were published in the IIP Annual Report on the 15th and 30th of each month during the ice season. 59 For the period of 1984-1995, the average ice sea- son began on March 9 and closed on August 15. LAKI data was available for analysis from March 15 to July 30. Before 1980, data was presented without this regularity. For that period, the limit setting icebergs were drifted using the operational drift model for several days to estimate the ice- berg limits on the 1 5th or 30th, provided the dura- tion of drift was less than 7-9 days. This drift esti- mate was made with calm winds, and iceberg de- terioration was not considered. A summary of the available data is given in Table 1 . In most cases the missing data simply reflects that in a given year the season began after the mean start date, or ended before the mean stop date. In a few cases, however, the bulletin did not show data for the given date. For each case, the LAKI was re-drawn us- ing current policy. The LAKI is drawn as a convex polygon enclosing the iceberg region, and is off- set from the extreme icebergs using an error circle of 30 nm. Since IIP policy is to connect the limit- setting icebergs with rhumb lines, the LAKI some- times encloses areas were icebergs are absent. This policy enables IIP to broadcast an alphanu- meric product, and gives the simplest shape de- fining the iceberg danger region. It also provides the mariner with a convenient method of receiving the report. Limits, by definition, include all the ice of which IIP has knowledge. Therefore the ex- treme limits can be set by a single iceberg which is far separated from others. Following this analysis the LAKI were digi- tized. Each one degree latitude/longitude square was considered to be inside the limits if over half of the area was within the LAKI, and a value of 1 was assigned to these blocks. Those blocks out- side the limits were assigned a value of zero. The mean value for each block was then computed. This method provides the probability that a given square was within the LAKI on the given date for the analysis period. The Climatological LAKI The annual progression of the climatologi- cal limits reflects the dominant features of the oce- anic circulation within the IIP operations area (Fig- ures 1-11). Icebergs are carried south by the La- brador Current. Icebergs close to Newfoundland move slowly southward on the inshore branch of the Labrador Current, while the faster moving, off- shore branch (30-40 cm/s) carries the icebergs southward along the eastern edge of the Grand Banks. The traditional height of the IIP season is often viewed to be mid-April. This is probably due to the sinking of the RMS TITANIC on April 15, 1912 at 41-54N, 50-1 4W. It is notable that the position of the disaster is outside the 25th percen- tile limit, but within the extreme limit of this mod- ern period. This climatology shows that the most extensive limits occur in May (Figures 6 and 11). Both median and extreme limits reach their maxi- mum on May 30. The median limit is 40 nm south of the Tail of the Grand Bank (42-20N), and the limits have been as far south as 38-30N (1990). To the east, the median limit includes Flemish Cap (a bank near 47N, 45W) throughout the year. Ice- bergs which are not carried south by the offshore branch of the Labrador current tend to drift east- ward, passing to the north of Flemish Cap. By late July, the limits have retreated near 45N with warming sea surface temperatures. Early in the ice season, the extreme limits are about 120 nm south of the median limit, and are located about 60 nm south of the Tail of the Grand Banks. In 1983, an unusual number of ice- bergs were carried south by the inshore branch of the Labrador Current, extending the extreme lim- its to 41 N, 54W on 15 March. In May, the extreme limits are up to 200 nm south of the median limit, and this inter-annual variability extends through the end of the ice season. The minimum iceberg limit remains north of 47-30N, and west of 50W, except for July when the minimum limit moves eastward to 47W by month's end. 60 The median limits (Figure 1 1 ) show a simi- lar, but smaller, seasonal progression to the ex- treme limits. Their southward extent agrees well with the bathymetry of the Grand Banks and the flow of the Labrador Current. Comparison with climatologies based on sightings Data presented in the IIP annual reports for 1945 through 1974 varies from the analysis described above, as only iceberg sightings were reported. Aircraft flight tracks and sightings were available for 1967 to 1974. Ship reports were not published for the period, but the flight tracks are assumed to cover the areas where icebergs had been reported by ships. From 1945 to 1966, the annual report plots the position of all targets re- gardless of sighting source. Iceberg limits were prepared based on the most recent sightings in the same manner in the previous analysis for two dates, April 15 and May 30. A summary of the available data is given in Table 2. Limits based on sighting data alone are less extensive than those based on sightings plus drift (Figures 12, 13). For April 15, the median limit from sighting data is 120 nm north of the median limit from current IIP practices (Figure 3). The extreme limit based on sightings is near the 30th percentile limit from the recent data. The southern extent of the median limits for May 30 shows a similar 120 nm difference, however the extreme southeastern and eastern limits are com- parable. While 1972 and 1974 were extreme ice seasons (based on the number of icebergs pass- ing south of 48N), the geographic extent of the limits far less extensive than that found for 1975- 1995. The Mudry (1991) frequency of iceberg sightings compares well with the sightings-only lim- its determined here. The region where icebergs were sighted with 40% to 60% frequency extends south to 43N, 50W (the Tail of the Grand Bank), and icebergs were sighted as far south as 39N, with one outlier at 36-30N, 49W. To the east, the median frequency extends to 45W near Flemish Cap. Conclusions This paper presents a climatology of the extreme distributions of icebergs in the North At- lantic based on the International Ice Patrol Limits of All Known Ice for the period of 1 975-1 995. The limits presented here are one limited representa- tion of the iceberg distribution. They represent the cumulative effects of reconnaissance, reporting, HP's knowledge of the regional oceanic circula- tion, wind data, and the activities of IIP operations personnel. The limits are also only instantaneous presentations for discrete times. For example, an extreme iceberg may be reported on the second of the month, and be deleted due to predicted deterioration or reconnaissance on the 14th, and not be represented in the basic data used here. Another realization of the iceberg distribu- tion is the iceberg sighting positions over time, but sighting data is also limited by reconnaissance dis- tribution, frequency and effectiveness. While this climatology seeks to forecast the fate of sighted icebergs, errors in the drift calculations arising from unknowns in ocean circulation are potentially large. Substantial differences exist between the 1945-1974 limits climatology based on sightings alone, and the more recent data. The limits based on sightings alone are more compact than the modern limits. Changes in the distribution of sightings, and changes in reconnaissance areas, may be investigated through the sighting data base. These may provide insight as to whether these differences are due to changes in the true iceberg distribution or simply to changes in the areas searched. 61 Date Years Missing Data Years Drifted, # of Days 1 5 March 76, 78, 84, 86, 88 75 - 8 days 79 - 9 days 30 March 88 75 - 4 days 76 - 3 days 78 - 6 days 79 - 6 days 86 - 3 days 15 April None 79 - 9 days 80 - 6 days 30 April 79 None 15 May None None 30 May 78 None ■••.•< 15 June 79,80 None 30 June 75, 77, 78 None 15 July 75, 77-80, 86 None 30 July ^ 75-78,80,81,86 None Tablel Data availability for 1975-1995. 'Years data missing' give periods when the IIP Annual Report did not contain data within 9 days of the analysis date. Years drifted give those years when limit setting icebergs were drifted using HP's operational model to bring the available data up to the analysis date. 62 Date Years Missing Data Years Drifted # of Days 9 15 April 51,53,58,60 30 May 46,51-53,58, 60, 63, 70, 73 ^ 63 - 6 days 65 - 6 days 69 - 6 days 70 - 4 days 71 - 3 days 45 - 6 days 49 - 7 days 50 - 5 days 52 - 9 days 4 days 6 days 4 days 9 days 8 days 5 days 4 days 69 - 6 days 72 - 7 days 56 59 60 62 64 65 67 Table 2 Data availability for 1945-1974. 'Years data missing' give periods when the IIP Annual Report did not contain data within 9 days of the analysis date. Years drifted give those years when limit setting icebergs were drifted using HP's operational model to bring the available data up to the analysis date. 63 References Anderson, I., 1983, "Iceberg Deterioration Model", Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic Ocean, Season of 1983, (CG-1 88-38), pp. 67-73. Anderson, I, 1993, "International Ice Patrol's Iceberg Sighting Data Base, 1960-1991", Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic Ocean, Season of 1993, (CG-1 88-48), pp. 49-80. Cote, P. W., 1989. Ice Limits, Eastern Canadian Seaboard, Ice Centre Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 39 pp. Defense Mapping Agency, 1992. Atlas of Pilot Charts - North Atlantic Ocean. 37 pp. Mountain, D. G., 1 980, "On Predicting Iceberg Driff , Cold Regions Science and Technology, Vol I (3/4), pp. 273-282. Mudry, D., 1991 ."Monthly Climatological Iceberg Limits," Unpublished Manuscript, Ice Centre Environ- ment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 14 pp. Trivers, G. A., 1994, "International Ice Patrol's Iceberg Season Severity", Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic Ocean, Season of 1994, (CG-1 88-49), pp. 49-59. Viekman, B. E., 1 993, "IIP Iceberg Resights - 1 992 and 1 993 Seasons," Report of the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic Ocean, Season of 1993, (CG-1 88-48), pp. 87-90. 64 March 15LAKI -50 -45 Longitude -40 -35 Figure 1 March 15 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of tfie LAKI from 1975-1995. Data availability is given in Table 1. Solid contours enclose equal occurrence that the limits of all known ice are within the given area for the study period (see text). Dashed contours show the 200 m and 1000 m isobath. 65 March 30 LAKI 52 50 48 0) 46 44 42 40 38 -60 ? /^ 1 "^ \ \ /Z -^ Mininutfi \ \ /'' '^ \ '"^"X v^?t r/^ 1 ,'^ ^^ ^'^^'.''^--? N \ \ \ \ \^\75th %ile / ' !,J \ 1 > V;^ \ 1, Median / /// \ ^^ \ V ^ 25th %ile / Extreme 1 -55 -50 -45 Longitude -40 -35 Figure 2 March 30 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 66 April 15LAKI 38 -60 -55 -50 -45 Longitude -40 -35 Figure 3 April 15 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 67 April 30 LAKI -55 -50 -45 Longitude -40 -35 Figure 4 April 30 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 68 May 15LAKI -60 -50 -45 Longitude -35 Figure 5 May 15 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 69 May 30 LAKI -50 -45 Longitude -40 -35 Figure 6 May 30 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 70 June 15LAKI -60 -55 -50 -45 Longitude Figure 7 June 15 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 71 June 30 LAKI -55 -50 -45 Longitude -40 -35 Figure 8 June 30 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 72 July 15LAKI -50 -45 Longitude -35 Figure 9 July 15 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 73 July 30 LAKI 38 -60 -55 -50 -45 Longitude -40 -35 Figure 10 July 30 climatological Limits of All Known Ice (LAKI) based records of the LAKI from 1975-1995. 74 Median limits - 1975-1995 52 51 50 49 48 0) ■D I 47 _j 46 45 44 43 42 y i \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 / ^ ^^*^ ./\v. ( / A ■•. • • //\ 1 97^^yv} ■■■■ ;• ..••■// 1 y^ r \ / yi ". •■ ■ y . / 'IS ~/ \i//^ / ■.;.•:--:/ / _ \^l / ••.•-' .-, . / (V '-'^^ .■ •. . -' ■. . ■ f " __^ \ \ \ : ■ : ^ /J \ \n .'■•■"''/••'■■■/'/ /^ - \ ^V .•■.■•7/13' ■"" // / ' \ \ \ "^ -- •' ' / ly y'^ ■N. \ ^v^ ^ '•' / J^ y / -^^--^^/^^is^ - -^ -'4V5/ / / ' ^ ^^■^ - -^ '' / y^y " ~ ^ \ ^^^^--LT^^'^ y^^ ^ s v \6/i5 a" y ' V ' ■ ' ■ '\ ^^''^ ■ N '' , - - 5/15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -56 -54 -52 -50 -48 Longitude -46 -44 -42 -40 Figure 11 Median Limits of All Known Ice for 1 975-1 995. Contours are denoted by the adjoining label. March 1 5 and June 15 are shown by solid lines, April 15 and July 15 by dashed lines, and May 15 by the dot- dashed line. Dotted contours show the 200 m and 1000 m isobath. Note that the May 15 limit encom- passes the most area. 75 April 15 Limits - 1945-1974 -50 -45 Longitude 35 Figure 12 Climatological Limits of All Known Ice based on 25 years' iceberg sighting data near April 15 for the years 1945 to 1974. Data availability is given in Table 2. 76 May 30 Limits - 1945-1974 -50 -45 Longitude -40 -35 Figure 13 Climatological Limits of All Known Ice based on 25 years' iceberg sighting data near May 30 for the years 1945 to 1974. Data availability is given in Table 2.. 77 78