will be included. There are advantages and disadvantages to this change. For the first time, there 

 will be a single database that contains all the iceberg reports in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 

 thus creating a comprehensive picture of the iceberg distribution. On the other hand, the database 

 provided to the archive centers will no longer be created by a single operations center, which may 

 make it difficult to maintain a database that is entirely homogeneous. For example, IIP and CIS 

 have different guidelines on merging some radar targets. Despite the best efforts there will be 

 unavoidable inconsistencies. 



This appendix summarizes the working agreements between CIS and IIP and explores the 

 impact on the iceberg sighting database IIP provides to archiving centers. It is not intended to be a 

 comprehensive analysis of the iceberg sightings in the western North Atlantic. 



Achieving Database Synchronization 



The first step in the synchronization process was to align the CIS and IIP drift and 

 deterioration models by agreeing on a single suite of environmental input parameters (wind speed 

 and direction, wave period and height, and sea surface temperature). IIP and CIS settled on a 

 combination of products from U.S. Navy's Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography 

 Center (FNMOC) and Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC). 



Icebergs can populate an enormous area of the western North Atlantic Ocean, sometimes 

 in great numbers. Each year the two operations centers receive and process reports of many 

 thousands of icebergs and unidentified radar targets. The watch standers must evaluate each 

 report to determine if the information refers to a target that has already been reported or a new 

 one. The appropriate information is then entered into the database, thus it was prudent to divide 

 the responsibility of entering reported iceberg information according to the primary area of each 

 organization's interest (Figure 1). IIP merges all iceberg reports south of 50°N and east of 55°W 

 because these are the icebergs that are most likely to enter the transatlantic shipping lanes. CIS 

 evaluates the iceberg reports north and west of those lines, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

 Choosing 50°N as the northern boundary of HP's area of responsibility is a small change from the 

 previous line at 52°N. Prior to 2006, IIP rarely entered into their database icebergs close to the 

 Newfoundland's northern peninsula because those icebergs had little chance of moving close to 

 the shipping lanes. Typically, they became trapped or grounded in the bays and would deteriorate 

 in place. If they did escape, coastal shipping would detect them and report their position. The 

 choice of a north-south boundary at 50° N is the result of CIS' desire to maintain detailed 

 information on the iceberg population near Newfoundland's northern peninsula, in the Strait of 

 Belle Isle and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 



Two copies of the shared database are maintained, one at each operations center. 

 Regardless of which operations center enters or updates iceberg information, the other's database 

 is automatically updated to reflect the change. This arrangement has the added advantage of 

 creating a live back-up database should a computer failure destroy one copy. 



54 



