Appendix D 



Synchronization of the IIP and CIS Iceberg Sighting Databases 



Donald L. Murphy 

 International Ice Patrol 



Introduction 



In 2006 International Ice Patrol (IIP) and Canadian Ice Service (CIS) operationally tested 

 a shared database of the iceberg population near the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and along the 

 Labrador coast. Previously, the two organizations maintained separate, although connected, 

 databases to produce ice warnings for their specific customers. 



CIS and IIP have a long record of close cooperation for mutual benefit. Although serving 

 different customers and different areas of responsibility, their products are based on the same 

 iceberg population. IIP, which operates under International Convention for the Safety of Life at 

 Sea (SOLAS) focuses on the transatlantic shipping lanes east and south of Newfoundland. CIS, a 

 branch of the Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC), is the leading authority for information 

 about ice in Canada's navigable waters. Since 1993 IIP and CIS have used very similar iceberg 

 drift and deterioration models to estimate the location of icebergs and create products. The major 

 difference between the models was the input environmental parameters (wind, waves, and sea 

 surface temperature) that drove them. Otherwise, the models, which form the basis for the 

 operational products, used the same equations, solution techniques, etc. Once an iceberg is 

 entered into the model, the database maintains a record of its location and size, shape, etc. 



Prior to 2006 CIS and IIP divided their data entry responsibilities at 52°N. During the part 

 of the year IIP produced daily warnings to transatlantic mariners (generally February through 

 June), CIS entered iceberg observations north of 52°N into their database. They also assumed 

 primary tracking responsibility. Once an iceberg moved south of 52°N it was handed off to HP's 

 database where it was treated as a newly sighted berg. Icebergs south of 52°N were HP's 

 responsibility to enter and track, as this information was used to create the limit of all known ice 

 (LAKI). CIS was required to monitor the iceberg population south of 52°N as well, so they could 

 generate products specific to Canadian waters. This resulted in an awkward situation for CIS and 

 IIP watch personnel who were forced into frequent communication to ensure no iceberg 

 observations were missed and the iceberg positions in the two databases were consistent. 



There were obvious benefits to having a single database to track the iceberg population 

 and create products: 



• sharing the data-entry burden 



• minimizing the opportunity for errors 



• creating an off-site back-up database in the event of a major computer failure or other 

 interruption of operations at either operation center 



The synchronization of the two databases has an important side effect. It will substantially 

 change the data that IIP provides to the archive centers each year because all the CIS data entries 



53 



