review of ice navigation simulator - transport...

Review of Ice Navigation Simulator

By

Centre For Marine Simulation, Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland,

P.O. Box 4920, St. John’s, Newfoundland & Labrador, A1C 5R3

Provided to

Transportation Development Centre 800 René –Lévesque Blvd. W., Suite 600, Montreal, QC H3B 1X9

under the terms of our MOU dated November 6, 2001

December 11, 2003


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction and Summary 2.0 Chronology of Events 3.0 Results of the Delivery of the Fundamentals of Ice Navigation Course 4.0 Overall Evaluation of TDC’s Simulator’s Capabilities 5.0 Conclusions APPENDIX A Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation Simulator B Review of International Ice Navigator Course C Steering Committee Minutes D Simulator Performance Correspondence


Review of Ice Navigation Simulator 1.0 Introduction and Summary In accordance with the Memorandum Of Understanding between the Transportation Development Centre (TDC) and the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University (Marine Institute) dated November 6, 2001, the Marine Institute undertook an evaluation of the Ice Navigation Simulator that was developed under contract to TDC by PhiloSoft. The Ice Navigator Simulator is described by TDC as a PC based simulation data system with visual outputs for the support of ice navigation training. This review of the Ice Navigation Simulator is the seventh and final element of the work plan between TDC and the Marine Institute. The review is based upon comments and observations received throughout the evaluation, including the comments received during the delivery of the “Fundamentals of Ice Navigation” course from February 24-28, 2003. As a result of the review, a number of observations can be made:

a) There was excellent support for the revised Ice Navigation Training Curriculum. The revised course appears to better meet the needs of entry-level ice navigators than the International Ice Navigator Course.

b) There was strong recognition of the need for simulation in entry-level ice navigation training. The committee of experts determined that simulation is a valid teaching method for many parts of the ice navigation curriculum. The views of the experts were confirmed by the students.

c) The combination of the capabilities of both the Ice Navigation Simulator and the MI’s full mission bridge simulator does not meet the full spectrum of requirements identified by the committee of experts. Of particular note is the lack of realistic models for ships maneuvering in ice.

d) The Ice Navigation Simulator, as provided by TDC for evaluation, is considered by the Marine Institute to be a part-task simulator. The simulator is part-task in the sense that it does not, nor was intended, to replicate the full complexity of navigation in ice. The system is a simulator since it permits the operation of one or more numerical models over time (ref. DMSO definition of a simulator).

e) The capability of the Ice Navigation Simulator to act as a stimulator or as a federate in a larger simulator was not evaluated. Additional reviews are recommended to determine the capability of the simulator to interact with other systems.

f) Future work on the simulator should concentrate upon having it meet the general requirements for simulators used in mariner training (i.e.: STCW '95 Section A-I/12 - especially the requirements for physical realism and instructor control of exercises), as well as ensuring that the simulator can integrate with other simulators to enable full mission simulation. It was established through review, the seminar/workshop and a test course that the simulator, with some changes, could be an excellent tool for teaching navigation and operations in ice-infested waters.

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 1


g) Although not a formal part of the evaluation, it was noted by both the committee of experts and the students that ICEANAV is an excellent tool to assist ice navigators.

2.0 Chronology of Events A Memorandum Of Understanding was signed November 6/2001 between TDC and the Marine Institute. It was based on a proposal submitted on October 4/2001 to evaluate the Ice Navigation Simulator (Appendix A). The International Ice Navigator Course was investigated at the beginning of 2002 and that investigation culminated in the Review of International Ice Navigator Course Interim Report (Appendix B) on March 29/2002. The simulator was installed at the Marine Institute April 17/2002 and was tested out for use. The Training Aids Module (TAM) was received February 25/2002 for assessment with the simulator. On May 9/2002 a Steering Committee Meeting (Minutes Appendix C) validated the evaluation methods and decided that all reports of defects, comments on simulator performance, and requests for enhancements should be sent to TDC as they were discovered. A compilation of the messages sent to TDC can be found in Appendix D. Changes were made to the simulator as a result of the comments submitted by the Marine Institute. The first changes were related to the instability of the simulator software, and were received on June 26/2002. These changes solved the simulator’s instability problem. Additional updates were received on November 14/2002 and on November 25/2002. The November updates were minor, from the perspective of the user, and were not easy to observe on the simulator. On February 17, 2003, a segment of a new world was received. The new world incorporated unwanted features in its textures and could not be corrected prior to the start of the pilot course. In addition, the new world contained an ice regime that could not be safely entered by the type of ownship provided with the simulator if the principals of ARISS were to be applied. 3.0 Results of the Delivery of the Fundamentals of Ice Navigation Course

Participants:

Lt. Zachary Ford United States Coast Guard Capt. Blair Rhynold Canadian Coast Guard Capt. John Broderick Canadian Coast Guard Capt. Edward Melvin Canship Capt. Neil Adams Marine Institute (ex. Marine Atlantic)



Instructors:

Capt. Sean Sheppard Capt. Sean Sheppard has extensive experience in navigating in ice in commercial vessels. Capt. Sheppard is also a seasoned simulation instructor and delivers the Simulated Electronic Navigation program at the Marine Institute.

Capt. Andrew McNeill Capt. Andrew McNeill is an adjunct instructor at the Marine Institute. Capt. McNeill is also a commanding officer in the Canadian Coast Guard, and has extensive icebreaking experience.

Ms. Tracey O’Keefe Ms. Tracey O’Keefe is a full-time instructor at the Marine Institute with an expertise in ship system design. Ms. O'Keefe has a background and keen interest in design for cold-ocean.

Capt. Klaus Hye-Knudsen Capt. Klaus Hye-Knudsen is instructor with the Centre for Marine Simulation and specializes in the design of simulation based training programs. Capt. Hye-Knudsen has some ice experience in the merchant fleets. Capt. Hye-Knudsen also participated in the development of a program to training simulation instructors in the Philippines on the effective use of simulation in training.

Facilities/Tools:

Both TDC’s Ice Simulator and the Marine Institute’s NMS 90 Full Mission Bridge Simulator were used for the exercises.

During the course development, the developers made use of the Training Aids Module (TAM). It offers lot of valuable information but for classroom instruction it is cumbersome to use in its present format. It could be put to good use if the course is ever delivered as a distance course either in part or in total. The Marine Institute course used the text, Ice Navigation in Canadian Waters, which participants and instructors found to be an excellent book for the purpose.

Schedule

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 09:00 Introduction

1 Ice Regime - ice types - ice concentration

2. Regulations Publications

4 Maneuvering in ice

7. Effect of low temp.

Simulation Exercise for maneuvering and icebreakers



Cpt S. Sheppard Cpt. McNeill Part simulation Cpt.S Sheppard Cpt Hye-Knudsen Lunch @ 1300

Tracey O’Keefe Cpt. S. Sheppard

Cpt Sheppard Cpt McNeill Cpt Hye-Knudsen

!3:00 1 Ice Regime Part simulation

6. Icebreaker operations

Class @ 1400 3. V/L Characteristics

5. Nav. In ice Cpt S Sheppard

Cpt S. Sheppard Cpt Hye-Knudsen

Part simulation Cpt. McNeill Cpt. Hye-Knudsen

Tracey O’Keefe Part simulation Cpt S Sheppard Cpt. Hye-Knudsen

Results Overall, the course was well received and recommended by all participants. Information about the course was collected by instructors and by use of Course Evaluation form QAP-10-2, which is the standard evaluation form, used at the Marine Institute. It asks the student to rate a number of standard items from 1 to 5, 1 being poor and 5 being excellent. The following is the average of the standard questions:

Reliability of simulator 4.6 Adequacy of equipment used during course

4.2

Realism of simulated environment (physical realism)

4.4

Content of course 4.4 Quality of course materials/handouts

4.2

Realism of exercises (operational realism)

4.6

Instructors’ knowledge of materials

4.8

Instructor’s presentation 4.6 Quality of briefings and debriefings

4.6

Registration process 4.6 Services (e.g. parking, cafeteria, library, bookstore, etc

4.2

Housekeeping and cleanliness

4.25



Table of comments from course evaluation form (QAP-10-2) Thought course was excellent. Took the most out of actual simulation. Theory - Ice egg, Regime, trip plan was beneficial section. Try to put trip plan & shuffle it. Show how trip plan can easily be altered due to up-to-date ice conditions. Section on different ship designs can be shortened. Although important I think it was too long. As a deck watch officer on an icebreaker I thought it was very beneficial putting myself on the other side (M/V) gave me a different perspective. Ship captains are at the mercy of the icebreakers. We need to be aware of this. Communication – Very important; Can not stress this enough when in simulation. This should be stressed. Too often miscommunication results in mishap. Section of forgotten escort information i.e. …stopping distances, cargo, realistic lights etc.. cannot be stressed enough. Rotate personnel in bridge so everyone gets a change to be on the radio and talk/setup and plan with icebreaker. This course is something that all junior officers would benefit [from] . The United States does not have a course like this, but I believe they should. I will bring this back to my command. Excellent course. Would be valuable for any master or mate intending to navigate in North Atlantic waters. Facilities: Ratings may seem low but only because that the course is in its infancy. Overall I would suggest this course to any officer navigating off Newfoundland waters Very impressed with theory instruction given by instructors. Their own experience has created a great instruction when passing on this theory; Simulator very close to reality recommends this course very highly. During the course the following was discovered and commented on:

Heading inappropriately expressed in degrees and minutes Course Made Good (CMG) changed faster than the course steered Ice resolution is far less detailed on the main server than the radar picture No clear height of ice on the visual channels The areas available (world) not suited for the simulation needed More background material (Ice charts, weather maps and so on) should be available with information for several days before the sailing time. That the simulator showed how difficult it is to change course on M/V Arctic in 1.5 metre ice was found to be very realistic.

During the preparation for the course it was impossible to save the exercises but the last changes received February 17/2003 again allow exercises to be saved. 4.0 Overall Evaluation of TDC’s Simulator’s Capabilities The table below summarizes the capabilities of the ice navigation simulator. The left-hand column contains those elements of the training syllabus that the committee of experts believed should be simulated for an effective program. The centre column



contains type of features or functionality required of the simulation. The right-hand column contains notes on the existing capabilities of the ice navigation simulator provided by TDC for the purposes of evaluation. Course Element Desired Capabilities Observed Capabilities 1.2 Ice types and concentrations

Explain and report. Compare to other ice information

The visual channels showing of ice was such that it was difficult to distinguish between the different types and concentrations of ice; when it comes to height differences only icebergs have any visual height. The world that the ship operated in only had very limited differences in concentration.

1.3 Ice reporting, coding and terminology

Report ice condition. Contact ice advisory and receive forecast. Report ice as seen.

The visual channels showing of ice did not allow for this type of exercise to take place.

1.4 Signs of ice in the vicinity

Simulate signs This could only be shown to a limited degree.

1.5 Ice imagery Used in planning for simulation. Send raw data to ship during simulation

Planning exercises were created but not executed on the simulator because suitable match of ship capabilities and ice conditions could not be found to meet the training objectives.

1.6 Effect of wind and current on ice motion

Simulate leads closing relative to weather pattern

The simulator has static (i.e. stationary) ice so this is not possible.

2.1 Regulations Change of ice requires reporting. Safety control zone order. Oil transfer

The static ice on the simulator makes it impossible to introduce dynamic changes to the ice regime, which would trigger an action on the part of the ice navigator.



3.1 Vessel types A number of ships for different behaviors, equipped with different propeller and hull types

The simulator now has a number of ships on it, and dependent on their size the ice makes more or less resistance, this should be investigated.

4.1 Approaching, entering and transiting ice

Simulate all. Simulate with iceberg roll. Safe passing distance from icebergs. Ice navigation with other ships and land

It was extremely difficult to find the desired conditions required for training within the worlds that were provided. Their areas of coverage combined with coarse feature resolution made it impossible to locate the desired ice conditions for scenario development.

4.3 Avoidance and freeing of beset vessel

Simulate with different levels, learn when to call icebreaker

The visuals (looking out the windows from the bridge) gave no height indication (made ice looking flat) ridges and lead with grey ice looks the same.

4.4 Maneuvering capabilities Different ships with different capabilities and ship with changeable draft

The world as created did not give us possibilities to maneuver around ice. It is either too heavy ice or giving no hindrance at all.

4.5 Docking and undocking Docking could be simulated and thrusters could be used

The simulator was not created for this.

4.6 Safety procedures during ice transit.

Would all be part of simulation. Will be incorporated into all problems that will be used in simulation. For example Conception Bay ice under pressure could be used

Having a simulator that uses static ice. Ice is not moving, creating pressures or opportunities and therefore it is difficult to use the simulator for safety procedures during ice transit.



5.1 Ice navigation Place the terrestrial navigation aids in wrong position. Compass errors. Simulate Radar GPS and DGPS with Datum problems. Use IceNav and or similar equipment. Datum exercise necessary e.g. with bad visibility and land. Use of communications of different kinds

IceNav is an excellent tool. Many of the attributes of Navigation while in ice can be practiced through Ice Nav. The Simulator is not equipped to generate errors (instrument and communications).

5.2 Passage planning Simulation preparation Each world needs a greater suite of ice and weather information leading up to the date of the world’s date.

6.1 Icebreaker requirement Preparation. Observation of ice. Call for icebreaker. Recall when situation calls for icebreaker

Simulator’s visual channels did not give a good enough picture of the ice to judge what ice to avoid. The radar gives a picture somewhat close to the picture on the IceNav.

6.2 Icebreaker communication

Use of communications with icebreaker. Emergency signals

Simulator was not equipped for this kind of simulation.

6.4 Safe speed and distances Two ships in operation with varying speed and emergency procedures. Respect for ice

Simulator was not equipped for this kind of simulation.

6.5 Convoy operations Similar to previous operation Simulator was not equipped for this kind of simulation.

5.0 Conclusions Under STCW '95, Table A-II/2 (Specification of minimum standard of competence for masters and chief mates on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more), passage planning in ice covered waters as well as ice navigation are mandatory training requirements. In both cases, approved simulator training is authorized as long as the simulator conforms with the minimum performance standards outlined in Section A-I/12 parts 1 and 2. The two key elements of the performance standard that justify the rational for evaluating the simulator performance against training objectives (as outlined in Section 4) are:



1. Each Party shall ensure that any simulator used for mandatory simulator-based training shall:

.1 be suitable for the selected objectives and training tasks… and

2. Each Party shall ensure that any simulator used for the assessment of competence required under the Convention or for any demonstration of continued proficiency so required shall:

.1 be capable of satisfying the specified assessment objectives. As will be noted from the table in section 4, there are a number of areas that need to be developed and/or enhanced for the existing simulator to meet the training objectives of an ice navigation course. Given that the simulator was developed as a part-task trainer, it is unreasonable to suggest that the existing simulator be modified to meet all of the identified training objectives. Within the current capabilities of the simulator, however, there are three principle areas that need to be addressed. Tailoring "worlds" to meet training objectives. When the playing area (the worlds) cannot be developed by the instructor but have to be created with a real ice chart from a day of ice, it becomes extremely difficult to get a good and varied world that will satisfy the objectives of the course. The fact that the worlds cannot be created by anyone other than the producer makes it necessary for the producer to create full finished exercises -- to think the whole scenario to its end and supply exercises that satisfy objectives in a training course. This limits the instructor’s creativity for teaching, and is therefore not common practice in maritime simulation. In many cases, scenario scripting tools are provided to the instructor such that the operational environment can be configured to meet specific training objectives. Adding the flexibility to create "worlds" within the existing simulator would be highly desirable feature, and should be considered for future upgrades. For the section on creating ships to be really useful, more explanation is needed on how each element influences the ship that is produced. Realistic ice interactions. STCW 95 section A-I/12 states that the simulator shall:

.3 have sufficient behavioral realism to allow a trainee to acquire the skills appropriate to the training objectives; and, .4 provide a controlled operating environment, capable of producing a variety of conditions, which may include emergency, hazardous or unusual situations relevant to assessment objectives.



Section B-I/12 (Guidance regarding the use of simulators) states that simulators should also be able to:

37.3 realistically simulate ‘own ship’ dynamic in open water conditions, including the effects of weather, tidal stream, currents and interaction with other ships.

In the context of the ice navigation simulator, section 37.5 should be interpreted as being able to realistically simulate interaction with ice. At the moment, the simulator offers what can be called “static” ice, ice that is not moving or changing according to current or wind. Real ships move not only in forward and aft directions but also sideways when moved by a current or wind. The simulator does offer these variables for the ship but not for the ice. The result is that the STCW requirements for behavioral realism and the interaction with targets is lacking. The ice on the main simulator platform (MSP) is not described in a detailed enough manner for the picture presented on the radar and on the ICENAV. The student who chooses a route based on information from the radar will be disappointed to find totally different ice when s/he goes to the visual for confirmation. And the student that uses the visual channels for navigation will soon give up on the radar. Realism in the user interface. STCW’95 Section A-I/12 Standards governing the use of simulators are very specific about Radar Simulation and states that:

4. Radar simulation equipment shall be capable of simulating the operational capabilities of navigational radar equipment, which meets all applicable performance standards adapted by the Organization [see resolutions A.222(VII), A.278(VIII) and A.477(XII)]…

The user interface to the radar using the student console provided by TDC does not meet the STCW requirements. TDC has advised the Marine Institute that the radar interface was not intended to be used for training purposes, but was provided to view what the ship’s radar output would look like if it was being displayed on a navigational radar. This being the case, then the radar screen provided with the simulator should be marked “NOT TO BE USED FOR RADAR TRAINING” to avoid students relying on the display. The radar image does not match the appearance of shipboard radars currently in use. The reaction of seasoned ice navigators was that the simulated shipboard display looked like radar images currently available through satellite. While TDC asserts that the simulated image looks like images available from advanced shipboard radars, there should be an option to process the simulated image so that it looks more like existing ship radar displays.



There is also a mismatch in the resolution of ice features between the radar representation (high resolution) and the visual channels (low resolution). The result is that the navigator cannot realistically correlate the two displays and is presented with an unreal sensor conflict. Since ice navigation relies upon both visual and radar cues, it is imperative to undertake work to resolve the mismatch between the visual and radar channels. STCW’95 Section B-I/12 states that the simulator should:

37.2 provide a realistic visual scenario by day and by night, including variable visibility, or by night only as seen from the bridge, with a minimum horizontal field of view available to the trainee in viewing sectors appropriate to the navigation and watchkeeping tasks and objectives.

The visual channel needs improvement in the way it represents visual cues for ice (colour, concentration and height). For example 10/10ths grey ice looks the same as a 3.3 m high ridge. More realistic visual representation of the ice regime would permit more objectives of the course to be covered with the simulator. Attention to improving the visual cues will enhance the ability of the simulator to be used in its current part-task configuration. The physical realism that STCW’95 asks for is very important as it encourages the student to accept the concept of simulation. It is difficult for the student to accept that s/he is steering as ship sitting in front of six (6) computers. All the small details that can be fixed should be fixed in order to encourage the feeling of realism. The ship movement display is a problem. Heading ought to be displayed as degrees with one decimal, no minutes, no seconds or anything else. The same may be said for CMG. Navigators will expect Rate of Turn to display in degree per minutes (degree/minutes) and not degree per seconds. Future Development Future simulator development plans should not only concentrate upon improving the performance of the existing simulator as outlined in the above three points, but also in expanding ice navigation simulation capabilities in general. Commercial simulator manufacturers (Transas and Kongsberg for example) indicate that their simulators have some ice navigation capabilities. The Marine Institute, the Institute for Marine Dynamics, and Oceanic Consulting Corporation are all working towards building ice navigation capabilities for simulators. Undoubtedly there are other entities working towards the same goal as well. An effort to coordinate the various efforts to reduce overlap and to optimize resource allocation would be a useful exercise. The trend in simulation is towards open systems and distributed simulation. While the focus of this report has been on the evaluation of the Ice Navigation Simulator as a part-task simulator, the capabilities of the simulator to act as a Federate within a larger



commercial simulator should be investigated. The ability of the simulator to stimulate bridge systems (such as radar and conning consoles) should also be investigated. Such an evaluation was scheduled to occur, but time and operational constraints precluded testing the stimulation capabilities of the Ice Navigation Simulator. During the course of the review, TDC indicated that one of the uses of the simulator was to showcase new and emerging technology, some of which is not commercially available. The scope of the review conducted by the Marine Institute was to evaluate the simulator as a training tool for mariners. By necessity, training must focus on technology currently in use as well as upon currently accepted ice navigation practices. With this in mind, the Marine Institute did not evaluate the utility of the simulator to demonstrate advanced technology. The Marine Institute acknowledges that simulators can be used effectively in this role.



Appendix A

Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation Simulator

Submitted by

Centre for Marine Simulation Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University

PO Box 4920 St. John’s, NF A1C 5R3

July 27, 2001

(Revised October 4, 2001)



Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation Simulator Introduction

Effective and safe sea transportation on the East Coast of Canada as well as the Canadian Arctic requires ships officers to be skilled in ice navigation. The requirement for skilled ice navigators is not unique to Canada, and is shared by many Countries that conduct shipping operations in high latitudes. Transport Canada has been reviewing the requirements for ice navigation training for a number of years. In 1996, Transport Canada presented the “International Ice Navigator Course – Draft” to the Ice Navigation and Training Group of the Circumpolar Advisory Group on ice Operations. The course was prepared over a two year period by Canarctic Shipping in association with the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland (Marine Institute). In order to support the learning objectives of the International Ice Navigator Course, Transport Canada sponsored the development of an Ice Navigation Simulator through the Transportation Development Centre (TDC). Funding for the project came from PERD and the Prairie and Northern Region of Transport Canada. On March 31, 2001, TDC accepted the first prototype of the Ice Navigation Simulator from PhiloSoft. The features of the prototype simulator include visual presentation of the ice environment around the vessel; realistic ship movements through ice; shipboard radar simulation; and outputs for standard shipboard equipment. At a presentation of the prototype simulator at the Marine Institute on February 16, 2001, TDC expressed and interest in conducting an evaluation of the simulator in a realistic training environment. This proposal is in response to the expression of interest by TDC.

Objectives

The primary objective is to evaluate the capability of the prototype Ice Navigation Simulator to meet selected training objectives in the International Ice Navigator Course. Secondary objectives include:

• Investigate the integration of the simulator with CMS simulators and live equipment; and,

• Investigate the benefits of ICENAV in ice operations.



Work Elements

In general, the work will consist of reviewing and incorporating the prototype Ice Navigation Simulator into the International Ice Navigator Course, and delivering 2 or more pilot courses. A report will be produced evaluating the utility of the simulator in training and make recommendations for future enhancements. The specific work elements are outlined below: 1. Review of the International Ice Navigator Course. The purpose of the review

is to determine the elements of the syllabus that are suited to simulation. As part of the review, any elements of the syllabus that requires updating will be noted and a separate report produced for the Transportation Development Centre.

2. Install the prototype Ice Navigation Simulator and conduct user training. The first part of this work element is to ensure that the simulator provided is complete and working correctly. The second component of this work element will ensure that Marine Institute personnel are fully trained on the operational and technical aspects of the simulator.

3. Review the capabilities of the prototype Ice Navigation Simulator. The purpose of the review is to determine the capabilities of the simulator and to match the capabilities against the learning objectives of the course that are suited for simulation.

4. Develop exercises for use with the prototype Ice Navigation Simulator. As part of the Quality Assurance program for the Marine Institute, all courses using simulation must have the exercises fully documented including student and instructor materials. The exercises produced will remain the property of the Marine Institute, however a copy of the exercises will be provided to the Crown to further regulatory developments in ice navigation.

5. Interface standard navigation equipment with the simulator. Depending upon an assessment of the technical capabilities of the simulator and the estimated costs of the interface, and attempt will be made to interface the simulator with standard navigation equipment. Interface options include part-task navigation instruments, ownship cubicles in the blind pilotage simulator, and the full mission bridge simulator.

6. Deliver pilot courses. The purpose of this work element is to test and refine the training program before selected groups of students. Initial offerings will be opened to ice navigators with experience in both icebreaker escort operations and merchant vessel ice navigation operations. Students from the pilot courses will provide feedback that will be used to adjust the program and to evaluate the use of simulation in the program.

7. Report the results of the evaluation. A written report will be submitted to TDC on the results of the trials as well as providing a list of recommendations for future work. The report will also include a summary of the student evaluations received during the pilot courses.



Deliverables

Deliverables for the project include: 1. A written report on the evaluation trials including recommendations for

future work. 2. An interim report on the results of the ice navigation syllabus review.

Participants

Steering Committee Capt. Anthony Patterson (Co-Chair) Mr. James Reid (or designate) (Co-Chair) Capt. Klaus Hye-Knudsen (Project Leader) Mr. John Tucker Mr. Robert Wells Ms. Kimberley Thornhill Capt. Brian Penney

Project Team Capt. Klaus Hye-Knudsen (Project Leader) Capt. Glenn Fiander Capt. Ed Anthony Capt. Andrew McNeil Mr. Charles Marton Mr. James Evely Mr. Spencer Barnes Ice Navigation Specialists as Required

Facilities/Equipment

TDC Provision of prototype simulator, complete with associated hardware, to the Marine institute. TDC will also supply the ICENAV software, and if required, associated hardware. Marine Institute Provision of classroom(s) and associated live equipment (if feasible).



Schedule

The project is anticipated to be completed within 12 months of delivery of the simulator to the Marine Institute. A tentative project schedule is outlined below:

1. Sign MOU with TDC at CMAC - Nov. 2001 2. Complete internal review of Ice Navigation Training Program - Jan. 2002 3. Complete installation and training on simulator - Jan. 2002 4. Panel of Experts review of Ice Navigation Program & Simulator

Capabilities - Feb. 2002 5. Finalize Interim Report on review of Ice Navigation Training Program for

TC - March 31, 2002 6. Finalize Initial Exercise Designs & Production of Course Materials - May,

2002 7. Deliver Pilot Course - June, 2002 8. Submit Program to NPC, with suitable revisions, for approval - Sept.

2002 9. Submit Draft Final report to TDC - Sept. 2002 10. Present Final Report to TDC at CMAC - Nov. 2002

Costs

TDC will cover the costs of the provision of hardware/software, installation of the simulator at the Marine Institute, the associated training program for Marine Institute personnel, and any technical assistance costs associated with the project. The Marine Institute will cover all costs associated with instructor salaries and facility usage. Participants in the pilot courses will be expected to cover their own costs. Extra costs associated with the interface with live equipment, or any additional work added to this proposal will be negotiated between the Marine Institute and TDC prior to the work commencing. Licenses to utilize the ice navigation simulation software after the conclusion of the evaluation project will be negotiated separately by the Marine Institute.



Appendix B

Review of International Ice Navigator Course

Interim Report

Prepared by

Centre for Marine Simulation Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland

P.O. Box 4920 St. John’s, NF

A1C 5R3

March 29, 2002

CMS Project 6100-2001-03



Review of International Ice Navigator Course

Introduction and Executive Summary In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated November 6, 2001, the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland (“Marine Institute”) agreed to conduct a review of the International Ice Navigator Course and report the results of the review to the Transportation Development Centre (TDC). The operational unit within the Marine Institute that has conducted the review is the Centre for Marine Simulation (CMS).

The review of the International Ice Navigator Course is the first element of a seven (7) part work plan to evaluate, and demonstrate the capabilities of, the Ice Navigation Simulator developed under contract to TDC by PhiloSoft. The primary purposes of the review were to identify those elements of the existing syllabus that are suited to simulation as well as to critically examine the syllabus to identify possible updates and/or revisions.

The International Ice Navigators Course currently consists of two parts, each part being one week in duration. The first part deals with introductory topics while the second deals with advanced topics. The project team recommends that the international course be revised to be a one week program that focuses upon introducing ice navigation to professional mariners who are about to conduct operations in ice covered waters for the first time. Advanced courses for experienced ice navigators will be specialized in nature and should be delivered on a case-by-case basis.

Under the terms of the November 6, 2001 MOU, the results of the syllabus review are to be submitted to TDC as an interim report. The interim report, in turn, will form the foundation upon which the detailed evaluation of the simulator will be based.

Project Team Capt. Klaus Hye-Knudsen was designated as project leader for the review. Capt. Hye-Knudsen is an instructor at CMS that has specialized expertise in the development of simulation based training programs. Capt. Hye-Knudsen also has previous operational experience in operating commercial vessels in ice-covered waters.

Capt. Andrew McNeill was assigned to assist Capt. Hye-Knudsen in the review of the syllabus. Capt. McNeill is an adjunct instructor at CMS and has extensive, and recent, ice experience as a Commanding Officer with the Canadian Coast Guard. Capt. McNeill is fully familiar with current methods and technology associated with ice navigation in Canada.

Capt. Anthony Patterson provided general support and guidance to the project team. Capt. Patterson has experience as a watchkeeping officer on both Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers as well as specially ice strengthened commercial vessels. Capt. Patterson also has experience in the management of technology evaluation projects.



Method The evaluation of the syllabus was conducted in 3 phases. In the first phase, both Capt.’s McNeill and Hye-Knudsen conducted independent evaluations of the syllabus for content a relevancy. Obsolete and irrelevant items were identified during this part of the review. The second phase consisted of a review of the course content to determine the best method to present the topics. The general format of the International Maritime Organization (as adapted by Transport Canada) was used to categorize the teaching elements as “simulation”, “demonstration” and “knowledge”. The third and final phase was to synthesize all comments and observations into a proposed “revised” syllabus.

The review of the syllabus was conducted independently of a review of the simulator. Indeed, the simulator was not delivered to the Marine Institute until after the project team had completed its evaluation. The independent review of the syllabus is seen to be of critical importance to the project to ensure that the simulator is objectively evaluated against the teaching requirements of the ice navigation program.

Results

Phases 1 & 2

Below is a table, which gives recommendations concerning the courses. Topics labelled “Revise” need an overhaul. Topics labelled “Demonstrate” may be taught with the help of a computer program, Power Point presentation or other demonstration technique. Topics labelled “Simulate” may be taught with the help of some sort of simulation. (Simulators are not necessarily available or even created for these topics at this point.) Topics labelled “Knowledge” may remain unchanged as classroom lectures. Topics labelled “Remove” may be deleted from the course.

Explanatory notes follow the table providing detailed information. Incorporation of the changes outlined in the explanatory notes section will bring the two-part ice navigator training program up-to-date and enhance them.

International Ice Navigator Level I

Recommendation 1.0 International Vessel Ice Classification 1.1 Ice Strengthening Requirement Revise 2.0 Ice Regime 2.1 Ice Physics, Formation, Growth Aging and melting.

Demonstrate

2.2 Ice Types and Concentrations Demonstrate 2.3 Ice reporting Coding and Terminology Demonstrate 2.4 Ice advisories and Forecasts Demonstrate 2.5 Reporting of Ice and Icing events as required by SOLAS and CSA

Demonstrate



2.6 Signs of Ice in the Vicinity Simulate 2.7 Ice Imagery Revise Demonstrate Simulate 2.8 Effects of Wind and Current on Ice Motion

Simulate

3.0 Regulations and Publications Revise 4.0 Vessel Characteristics Revise 4.1 Vessel Types Simulate 4.2 Manoeuvring Capabilities Simulate 4.3 Hull Design Knowledge 4.4 Cargo Requirements Knowledge 5.0 Manoeuvring and Operating Independently in Ice

5.1 Approaching, Entering, and Transiting Ice.

Simulate

5.2 Manoeuvring Astern Simulate 5.3 Avoidance of becoming Beset Simulate 6.0 Navigation in Ice 6.1 Navigational Aids and Seasons Knowledge 6.2 Charts and Publications Revise 6.3 Compasses Simulate 6.4 Electronic Systems and Aids Simulate 6.5 Astronomical Position Fixing Remove 6.6 New and Developing Technologies Revise 6.7 Communications Simulate 7.0 Icebreaker Operations 7.1 Icebreaker Communication Simulate 7.2 General Ice breaker Operating Methods and Assisted Transit

Simulate

8.0 Effects of Extreme Low Temperatures 8.1 Brittleness of ships components due to Freezing

Knowledge

8.2 Freezing of equipment Knowledge 8.3 Methods and Precautions in De-icing Knowledge 9.0 Emergency Procedures and Survival Techniques

9.1 Fire-fighting hazards in sub-zero conditions

Demonstrate

9.2 Abandonment of Vessel in Ice infested waters

Demonstrate

9.3 Survival on the Ice Demonstrate 9.4 Safety Procedures During Ice Transit Simulate



International Ice Navigator Level II 1.0 Manoeuvring and piloting strategies 1.1 Ice Transiting Simulate 1.2 Freeing a vessel beset Simulate 1.3 Hazardous Ice Transit Simulate 1.4 Towing in Ice Simulate 1.5 Docking and Undocking Simulate 1.6 Operation of a damaged vessel Simulate 1.7 Speciality Ice operations Simulate 2.0 Icebreaker assistance 2.1 Icebreaker operating methods Simulate 2.2 Signals and Communications Simulate 2.3 Safe speeds and distances Simulate 2.4 Convoy operations Simulate 3.0 Stability considerations 3.1 Causes and Effects of Icing Demonstrate 3.2 Stability Considerations when Ice Breaking

Demonstrate

4.0 Ice damage and damage control 4.1 Areas of frequent damage on vessels Knowledge 4.2 Engineering considerations Knowledge 4.3 Damage discovery and recognition Demonstrate 4.4 Temporary repair techniques Knowledge 4.5 Pollution control and contingency planning

Knowledge

5.0 Passage Planning 5.1 Appraisal and Analysis of passage planning data

Simulate

5.2 Meteorological and environmental effects

Simulate

5.3 Cultural considerations Knowledge Explanatory Notes Ice Navigation Level I

The topic “Astronomical Position Fixing” may be removed, as conditions are not so different in the Arctic that a proficient navigator would need extra training.

The Canadian Arctic Pollution Prevention Regulation (CAPPR) has been revised; therefore the sections “Ice Strengthening Requirement” and “Regulations and Publications” need to be amended.



Revisions to “Ice Imagery”, “Charts and Publications”, “New Technology”, and “Communications” are necessary because of advances in and new uses of technology. Most of the topics under “Ice Regime”, “Emergency Procedures”, and “Survival Techniques” would benefit from revision that would include new uses of computer applications. (Incidentally, “Emergency Procedures” and “Survival Techniques” could be moved from this course to the Marine Emergency Duties course.)

The topics “Effect of Extreme Low Temperature”, “Hull Design”, “Cargo Requirements”, and “Navigational Aids and Seasons” are still valid and need not change. “Navigational Aids and Seasons” can be simulated to some degree.

The remaining topics would benefit from some sort of simulation. Topics such as “Manoeuvring and Operating Independently in Ice”, “Approaching, Entering and Transiting Ice”, “Manoeuvring Astern”, “Communications” and “Electronic Systems and Aids” are prime candidates for simulation.

Ice Navigator Level II

Simulation would improve the way most of the Level II course is taught. All of the topics under 1.0 “Manoeuvring and Piloting Strategies” and all the topics under 2.0 “Icebreaker Assistance” can be taught with simulation. The major part of the topics under 5.0 “Passage Planning” can be taught with simulation.

“Stability Considerations” and “Damage Discovery” can be enhanced by computer demonstration.

“Engineering Considerations”, “Pollution Control and Contingency Planning” and “Cultural Considerations” are fine as they are. Phase 3

A close reading of the Draft: International Ice Navigator Course suggests several changes. It is felt that, for the student, an introductory course is far more important than a course taken after experience navigating in ice. The current Level II course has three problems - it is in places too specific, in others too repetitive of the Level I course and it brings the student back for another week of schooling. A tightening of the Level I and II course coverage and layout as well as use of computers and simulation would turn the two courses into one. One course of one-week duration might also be more saleable to all parties concerned with ice navigation. If a new Level II course is desirable it could be taught as a distance education course.

The new Ice Navigator Course would see the following topics pulled from the Level I course:



1.0 Move the 1.1 “Ice Strengthening Requirement” to 4.0 “Vessel Characteristics”. (The Canadian Arctic Pollution Prevention Regulation (CAPPR) is much clearer on this issue.)

2.0 Move 2.4 and 2.5 “Ice Advisory and Forecast” and “Reporting of Ice and

Icing Events” as required by SOLAS and CSA into 2.3 “Ice Reporting, Coding and Terminology” to make one heading dealing with ice reporting and coding.

2.7 Revise “Ice Imagery” to reflect today’s practice. 3.0 Revise “Regulations and Publications” to cover only the part that pertains to

“Ice Navigation”. Such a revision will eliminate half the material currently in the course.

4.0 Revise “Vessel Characteristics” to contain 1.1 “Ice Strengthening

Requirement”. Move 4.2 “Manoeuvring Capabilities” to 5.0 “Manoeuvring and Operating”.

5.0 Keep “Moving and Operating Independently in Ice” as is. 6.0 Section 6 “Navigation in Ice” is just plain navigation. Cut it back, making it a

small topic concerned with the details about charts and chart datum in the Arctic. Incorporate 9.4 “Safety Procedures during Ice Transit” and keep this as one topic called “Navigating in the Arctic”.

7.0 Revise “Ice-breaker Operation” to contain all the material from course Level

II topic 2.0 “Icebreaker Assistance”. That will save teaching it twice. 8.0 Keep “Effect of Extreme Low Temperatures” as is. 9.1 “Fire Fighting Hazards and Sub-zero Conditions” and 9.3 “Survival on the

Ice” belong in the Marine Emergency Duties (MED) course. Move 9.4 “Safety Procedures during Ice Transit” and place it with 6.0 “Navigation in Ice”.

The following topics from the Level II course move into the new course in the following ways: 1.1 “Ice Transiting moves to topic 5.0 “Manoeuvring in Ice”. 1.2 “Freeing a Vessel Beset” moves to topic 5.0 “Manoeuvring in Ice”. 1.3 “Hazardous Ice Transit” moves to 2.2 “Ice Types and Concentrations”. 1.5 “Docking and Undocking” moves to 5.0 “Manoeuvring in Ice”. 2.0 All of “Icebreaker Assistance” moves to 7.0 “Icebreaker Operations”.



4.1 Revise “Areas of Frequent Damage on Vessels” and move it into 8.0 “Effects of Extreme Low Temperatures”.

4.2 Revise “Damage Discovery and Recognition” and move it to 8.0 “Effects of extreme Low Temperatures”.

5.1 Move “Appraisal and Analysis of Passage Planning Data” to topic 6.0 “Navigation in Ice”.

5.2 Move “Meteorological and Environmental Effects” to 6.0 “Navigation in Ice”.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the remainder of the project focus on the delivery of the revised 1 week Ice Navigators Course. The changes noted during phase 3 of the evaluation will make the course look like the following course outline. In making the changes topic 1.0 “International vessel Ice Classification” disappears as a topic by itself, causing all topics to become one number lower than in the previous courses.



Comparison between Old and Revised Courses

International Ice Navigator Level 1 Moved to Revised Course Left for deletion or other

courses 1.0 International Vessel Ice Classification 1.1 Ice Strengthening Requirement 1.1 Ice Strengthening Requirement 2.0 Ice Regime 2.1 Ice Physics, Formation, Growth Aging and melting.

2.1 Ice Physics, Formation, Growth Aging and melting.

2.2 Ice Types and Concentrations 2.2 Ice Types and Concentrations 2.3 Ice reporting Coding and Terminology

2.3 Ice reporting Coding and Terminology

2.4 Ice advisories and Forecasts 2.4 Ice advisories and Forecasts

2.5 Reporting of Ice and Icing events as required by SOLAS and CSA

2.5 Reporting of Ice and Icing events as required by SOLAS and CSA

2.6 Signs of Ice in the Vicinity 2.6 Signs of Ice in the Vicinity 2.7 Ice Imagery 2.7 Ice Imagery 2.8 Effects of Wind and Current on Ice Motion

2.8 Effects of Wind and Current on Ice Motion

3.0 Regulations and Publications 3.0 Regulations and Publications 3.0 Regulations and Publications 4.0 Vessel Characteristics 4.1 Vessel Types 4.1 Vessel Types 4.2 Manoeuvring Capabilities 4.2 Manoeuvring Capabilities 4.3 Hull Design 4.3 Hull Design 4.4 Cargo Requirements 4.4 Cargo Requirements 5.0 Manoeuvring and Operating Independently in Ice 5.1 Approaching, Entering, and Transiting Ice.

5.1 Approaching, Entering, and Transiting Ice.

5.2 Manoeuvring Astern 5.2 Manoeuvring Astern 5.3 Avoidance of becoming Beset 5.3 Avoidance of becoming Beset 6.0 Navigation in Ice 6.0 Navigation in Ice

6.1 Navigational Aids and Seasons 6.1 Navigational Aids and Seasons

6.2 Charts and Publications 6.2 Charts and Publications 6.3 Compasses 6.3 Compasses 6.4 Electronic Systems and Aids 6.4 Electronic Systems and Aids

6.5 Astronomical Position Fixing 6.5 Astronomical Position Fixing6.6 New and Developing Technologies

6.6 New and Developing Technologies



6.7 Communications 6.7 Communications 7.0 Icebreaker Operations 7.1 Icebreaker Communication 7.1 Icebreaker Communication 7.2 General Ice breaker Operating Methods and Assisted Transit

7.2 General Ice breaker Operating Methods and Assisted Transit

8.0 Effects of Extreme Low Temperatures 8.1 Brittleness of ships components due to Freezing

8.1 Brittleness of ships components due to Freezing

8.2 Freezing of equipment 8.2 Freezing of equipment 8.3 Methods and Precautions in De-icing

8.3 Methods and Precautions in De-icing

9.0 Emergency Procedures and Survival Techniques

9.0 Emergency Procedures and Survival Techniques

9.1 Firefighting hazards in sub-zero conditions

9.1 Firefighting hazards in sub-zero conditions



9.3 Survival on the Ice 9.3 Survival on the Ice 9.4 Safety Procedures During Ice Transit

9.4 Safety Procedures During Ice Transit

International Ice Navigator Level 2 1.0 Manoeuvring and piloting strategies 1.1 Ice Transiting 1.1 Ice Transiting 1.2 Freeing a vessel beset 1.2 Freeing a vessel beset 1.3 Hazardous Ice Transit 1.3 Hazardous Ice Transit 1.4 Towing in Ice 1.4 Towing in Ice 1.5 Docking and Undocking 1.5 Docking and Undocking

1.6 Operation of a damaged vessel 1.6 Operation of a damaged vessel

1.7 Speciality Ice operations 1.7 Speciality Ice operations 2.0 Icebreaker assistance 2.1 Icebreaker operating methods 2.1 Icebreaker operating methods 2.2 Signals and Communications 2.2 Signals and Communications 2.3 Safe speeds and distances 2.3 Safe speeds and distances 2.4 Convoy operations 2.4 Convoy operations 3.0 Stability considerations 3.0 Stability considerations 3.1 Causes and Effects of Icing 3.1 Causes and Effects of Icing 3.2 Stability Considerations when Ice Breaking

3.2 Stability Considerations when Ice Breaking



4.0 Ice damage and damage control 4.1 Areas of frequent damage on vessels

4.1 Areas of frequent damage on vessels

4.2 Engineering considerations 4.2 Engineering considerations 4.3 Damage discovery and recognition

4.3 Damage discovery and recognition

4.4 Temporary repair techniques 4.4 Temporary repair techniques4.5 Pollution control and contingency planning

4.5 Pollution control and contingency planning

5.0 Passage Planning 5.1 Appraisal and Analysis of passage planning data

5.1 Appraisal and Analysis of passage planning data



5.3 Cultural considerations 5.3 Cultural considerations



Appendix A

REVISED ICE NAVIGATOR COURSE

Element Revise Knowledge Demonstrate Simulate

1.0 Ice Regimes 1.1. Ice physics, formation, growth,

ageing, and stages of melt

1.2. Ice types and concentrations 1.3. Ice reporting, coding, and

terminology

1.4. Ice advisories and forecasts 1.5. Signs of ice in the vicinity 1.6. Ice imagery 2.0 Regulations and publications 3.0 Vessel characteristics 3.1. Vessel types 3.2. Hull Designs 3.3. Ice strengthening requirements 4.0 Manoeuvring in ice 4.1. Approaching, entering, and transiting ice 4.2. Manoeuvring astern 4.3. Avoidance and freeing vessel beset 4.4. Manoeuvring capabilities 4.5. Docking and undocking 4.6. Safety procedures during ice transit 5.0 Navigation in ice 5.1. Navigation in the Arctic 5.2. Passage Planning 6.0 Icebreaker Operations 6.1. Icebreaker communication 6.2. Icebreaker operating methods 6.3. Safe speeds and distances



6.4. Convoy operations 7.0 Effects of extreme low temperatures 7.1. Brittleness of ships components 7.2. Freezing of equipment 7.3. Methods and precautions in de-icing 7.4. Ships preparations for low temperatures

It may be felt that some of the subjects removed from the Level I and/or Level II courses are too valuable to lose. If so, any of the following ideas could be used to obtain the same results without extending the student's time in the classroom.

1) A prerequisite distance course (if the student needs it) on knowledge-

based material, such as regulations and publications. If there is room to cover these topics in the regular part this pre-requisite will be unnecessary.

2) An "On The Job" training section, monitored by testimonials with time limits prescribed by Transport Canada.

3) A distance course covering material not covered by the "On The Job" section or designed to check the effectiveness of the "On The Job" training.



Appendix C

Ice Navigation Simulator Evaluation Steering Committee Minutes

May 9, 2002 In Attendance: Anthony Patterson (Co-Chair) James Reid (Co-Chair) Klaus Hye-Knudsen Charles Gautier Brian Legge (for Capt. Brian Penney) Kim Thornhill Invited Guest: Bob Gorman Regrets: John Clarkson Robert Wells Meeting was opened at 0900 NDST at the Marine Institute in Room 2212. The Co-Chairs opened the meeting, and all in attendance introduced themselves. Brian Legge joined the meeting at 1100, while Kim Thornhill left at 1000. The agenda was adapted as read. Agenda Item 2.1 (Review of TDC-MI/MOU). The primary and secondary objectives of the project were reviewed and accepted. It was noted by TDC that some of the specific work elements noted in the MOU are related to the achievement of the secondary objectives, and that they must not be pursued to the exclusion of meeting the primary objective. Changes were made to the participants of the steering committee. Mr. John Tucker of the Marine Institute was replaced by Capt. John Clarkson (or Designate) of Transport Canada. It was further noted by the MI that the tentative project schedule will need to be amended due to the late delivery of the simulator to the Marine institute (see agenda item 5 for revised schedule). TDC emphasised the element of the MOU dealing with licences, and the need for the MI to negotiate a usage license with the simulator supplier separately. Bob Gorman indicated that a ICENAV instruction manual was to have been delivered with the simulator, and will send one to the MI upon his return to the office. Agenda Item 2.2 (Review of Simulator Development). It was noted by TDC that the current project is the first time in the development process that the ice navigation



simulator has been intensively reviewed by a training institution. The training needs of a professional marine training facility in the delivery of an ice navigation course, may not exactly coincide with features, capabilities and supporting data of the current simulator - this is under review and forms the primary objective for the MOU. It was noted that a detailed presentation concerning the technology development path for the simulator was given by TDC two days prior to the steering committee meeting for the benefit of ice navigators and MI staff involved with the project. A shortened version of this presentation would have been delivered to the steering committee for the benefit of Mr. Clarkson, or his delegate, but both were unable to attend. Agenda Item 3 (Status Report on Work Conducted to Date). Elements 1 and 2 of the specific work elements contained in the MOU have been completed (i.e.: review of syllabus and installation of simulator). Since installation of the simulator on April 15, the MI Project Leader has been compiling a defect log. In general there are three types of items being noted. The first type of problem deals with the stability of the program (e.g.: crashes). The second type relates to incomplete documentation that is necessary for training (e.g.: ice charts, imagery, weather forecasts, etc.). The third type relates to the user interface and the ability of students and instructors to use the program (e.g.: heading lines, orientation of north, compass display, etc.). It was agreed that all problems would be communicated to Charles Gautier of TDC ASAP, and that the MI would also report problems of the first type to Philosoft directly as well. TDC is not sure what type or how many of the defects will be corrected by PhiloSoft under the current contract. TDC will discuss this issue with PhiloSoft and advise the MI accordingly. Agenda Item 4 (Review of Training Syllabus). Anthony Patterson indicated that Ray Krick (delegate of John Clarkson) reviewed the interim report, and supported the recommendation to modify and shorten the International Ice Navigator training program. The remainder of the steering committee also endorsed the recommendations with the following modifications: a) the section from the old syllabus on new and emerging technologies (Level 1 – 6.6) be reintroduced into the program; and b) that the Training Aids Module be considered as part of the simulator analysis. Agenda Item 5 (Next Steps). With the late delivery of the simulator, as well as the noted defects in the stability of the program, it is not feasible to complete all elements of the detailed workplan by the fall CMAC (early November). A new time table was proposed as follows: 1. Return the simulator to operational status – End of June (TDC) 2. Exercise design and detailed course objectives for the simulation elements of the

revised syllabus – End of May (MI) 3. Detailed course objectives for remaining course completed – Mid-September (MI) 4. Panel of experts (pilot course #1) – Mid-September (MI) 5. Pilot course to students (pilot course #2) – Early October (MI)



6. Steering Committee Meeting – Late October (TDC host) 7. Draft final report to TDC – Early November (MI) 8. Presentation at CMAC of progress and preliminary results – Early November (MI) 9. Final Report to TDC – End of December (MI) It was noted by the MI that a draft training syllabus in the Transport Canada format could be tabled at the Spring 2003 CMAC for consideration of the Standing Committee on Personnel. This point will be further considered by the steering committee at its next meeting. Agenda Item 6 (Simulator Demonstration). Interested members of the Steering Committee were given a demonstration of the simulator and its performance by the MI project leader (Klaus Hye-Knudsen). The meeting adjourned at 1500. Anthony Patterson James Reid Co-Chair Steering Committee Co-Chair Steering Committee Director Chief Centre for Marine Simulation Transportation Systems Technology Marine Institute Transportation Development Centre



Appendix D To: Capt. Anthony Patterson, Director of Centre for Marine Simulation From: Capt. K. Hye-Knudsen Subject: Ice Experts Seminar/Workshop

December 9, 2002

As part of the Centre for Marine Simulation’s evaluation of the Transportation Development Centre’s Ice Navigation Simulator, a Seminar/Workshop was held with a group of people known for their knowledge of Ice Navigation. The Ice Experts Seminar/Workshop took place at the Marine Institute at CMS from November 13, 2002 to November 15, 2002. Participants in the Seminar/workshop were: Captain Robert J. Parsons, from Polar Marine Consultants Captain Ray Bartlett, from Operations Canadian Coast Guard St. John’s Newfoundland Captain Marmeduke L. Collins, a retired Pilot and Ice Pilot with Atlantic Pilot Association Captain Sean Sheppard, Ice Navigator and Instructor from Marine Institute Captain Klaus Hye-Knudsen, Simulator Instructor from Marine Institute and Project Leader The Agenda was as follows:

Ice Navigation, Meeting of Experts

November 13, 2002

Day 1 Background and Tour of Facilities Presentation of Course Outline, validation of objectives Day 2 Identify objectives that may be linked to simulation, separate Objectives for simulation.

Finish off simulation on Full Motion Simulator. Day 3 Prescribe simulator type for the simulated objectives, divide Objectives into simulator type. Assess the facilities capability to simulate the objectives.



Day 1 Capt. Klaus Hye- Knudsen opened the meeting with an explanation of how the meeting was a necessary part of the Marine Institute’s evaluation of Transportation Development Centre’s (TDC) simulator and that this evaluation made it necessary to evaluate the new International Ice Navigator course. In order for the participants to better understand some of the aspects of simulation a tour was conducted which incorporated a view of the TDC simulator and a simulation run on the full motion simulator. The experts then examined the course outline to see if the topics reflected a reasonable approach for a course designed to fit a navigator at an Ice Navigation entry level. There was general agreement that the course outline as written was appropriate. After this the seminar participants went through the learning objectives to see whether the objectives would be right and sufficient for the course. The following was noted: - Under 3.1 Vessel Types the point was made that pods could be mentioned. Under 3.2 it

was found that the different designs incorporated features on icebreakers and normal ships, and that it could possible be split in those two distinctive parts.

- 4.6 Safety procedures during ice transit – “Discuss the following hazardous ice

conditions during transit” should include “Safety and dangers around icebergs”. - When the topics “Navigation in ice” and “Electronic navigation systems” were

discussed, some time was spent on the matter of erroneous information and on the fact that it is now possible, with the right instruments, to get direct information from the satellites.

- Passage Planning, include “Historical Information” - The topic “New and Developing technologies” is a topic that the ice experts liked in

that, to a certain degree, it forces continuous renewal to the course. - 6.5 Convoy Operations, it was mentioned that in today’s shipping environment with

bigger and more powerful ships it is less likely that ships (other than fishing vessels) would be in many convoy operations.

- Point 7 was found very useful. It noted that, without preparation, voyages under subzero

temperatures could be expensive and dangerous.



Day 2 The group tried to identify which objectives could be simulated if a simulator were available. Below is a table describing the outcome of the discussion. 1.0 Ice Regimes

1.1 Ice physics, formation, growth, ageing, and stages of melt

1.2 Ice types and concentrations Explain and report. Compare to other ice information

1.3 Ice reporting, coding, and terminology

Report ice condition. Contact ice advisory and receive forecast. Report ice as seen

1.4 Signs of ice in the vicinity Simulate signs 1.5 Ice imagery Used in planning for simulation. Send raw

data to ship during simulation. 1.6 Effect of wind and current on ice

motion Simulate leads closing relative to weather pattern.

2.0 Regulations and publications 2.1 Regulations Change of ice requires reporting. Safety

control zone order. Oil Transfer 2.2 Publications Possible add on for special interest groups

see note below 3.0 Vessel Characteristics

3.1 Vessel types A number of ships for different behaviors, equipped with different propeller and hull types.

3.2 Hull designs Special Course for icebreaker with simulation showing the difference in using the different design parts

3.3 Ice strengthening requirements 4.0 Manoeuvring in ice

4.1 Approaching, entering and transiting ice

Simulate all. Simulate with iceberg roll. Safe passing distance from icebergs. Ice navigation with other ships and land

4.2 Manoeuvring astern Simulate 4.3 Avoidance and freeing of beset

vessel Simulate with different levels, learn when to call icebreaker

4.4 Manoeuvring capabilities Different ships with different capabilities and ship with changeable draft

4.5 Docking and undocking Docking could be simulated and thrusters could be used

4.6 Safety procedures during ice transit Would all be part of simulation. Will be incorporated into all problems that will be used in simulation For example Conception Bay ice under pressure could be used.



5.0 Navigation in ice 5.1 Ice navigation Place the terrestrial navigation aids in

wrong position. Compass errors. Simulate Radar GPS and DGPS with Datum problems. Use IceNav and or similar equipment. Datum exercise necessary e.g. with bad visibility and land. Use of communications of different kinds

5.2 Passage planning Simulation preparation 5.3 New and developing technologies

6.0 Icebreaker operations 6.1 Icebreaker requirement Preparation. Observation of ice. Call for

icebreaker. Recall when situation calls for icebreaker

6.2 Icebreaker communication Use of communications with icebreaker. Emergency signals

6.2 Icebreaker operation methods Simulate from the assisted ship’s point of view.

6.3 Safe speed and distances Two ships in operation with varying speed and emergency procedures. Respect of ice

6.4 Convoy operations Similar to previous operation. 7.0 Effect of extreme low temperatures

7.1 Brittleness of ships components 7.2 Freezing of equipment 7.3 Methods and precaution in de-icing 7.4 Ships preparations for low

temperatures

Note: If desired from special interest group, an add on to the Ice Navigation course could be prepared e.g. for tank ships or barges or for oil transfer.



Day 3 The next task was to separate the different simulation tasks for different simulator types. The project leader started with a presentation about simulators. To give the participants who do not normally work with simulation an idea of the difference between simulators DNV’s “Standard for Certification of Maritime Simulator Systems” was used.

Out of the discussion that followed the presentation came the observation that as the personnel who will be taking the course are navigators, there is no need to train them in the use of the many specific instruments you would find on a normal ship other than special ice navigation instruments such as IceNav. The limited time allowed makes it difficult to simulate the different tasks individually. Typically an exercise will therefore incorporate several aspects of ice navigation, such as:

Planning routing Proceeding into ice Reporting while preparing the ship Compensating for obstacles encountered Advanced maneuvering in restricted area And so on

Because the different aspects belong together and complement each other while time limits prevent single task simulation it was found that a simulator for ice navigation should be able to do as much as possible. The second part of the last day was spent mainly on the new simulator from TDC. The project leader pointed out that improvements to the simulator were on their way, which would significantly change what was currently on the simulator. A few good ideas about using the simulator for planning and sailing came about particularly when and if a new area and new ships were obtained. It was noted that the full motion simulator, could be used for sailing when it required other ships such as other traffic and for the section concerning icebreakers. Conclusion The Project Leader appreciates the very good recommendations from the group and will use the outcome from the meeting to its fullest. cc: R. Bartlett, M.L. Collins, R.J. Parsons, S. Sheppard



Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland Page 39

review of ice navigation simulator - transport...

Documents