                                   If symbols do not display correctly change 
                                   your browser character encoding to unicode 



CRUISE REPORT: HLY0301
(Updated FEB 2012)



A.  HIGHLIGHTS

                        CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION

          WOCE Section Designation  HLY0301
Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  32H120030721
                  Chief Scientists  Dr. Kelly Kenison Falkner / OSU
                             Dates  2003-07-21 to 2003-08-16
                              Ship  R/V Healy
                     Ports of call  St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada - 
                                    Thule, Greenland

                                                 82° 7' 32" N
             Geographic Boundaries  74° 53' 52" W            60° 22' 47" W
                                                 72° 20' 9.6 N

                          Stations  54
      Floats and drifters deployed  0
    Moorings deployed or recovered  5 Moorings Deployed in Nares Strait
                                    18 Moorings Deployed in Kennedy Channel

                               Chief Scientist:
        Dr. Kelly Kenison Falkner • Professor of Chemical Oceanography
     College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences • Oregon State University
               104 COAS Admin Bldg • Corvallis  OR  97331-5503
          Tel: 541-737-3625 • Email: kfalkner@coas.oregonstate.edu




                       RESEARCH CRUISE REPORT:  MISSION HLY031




     Conducted aboard USCGC Healy In Northern Baffin Bay and Nares Strait

                           21 July –16 August 2003

                                PROJECT TITLE: 
|
    VARIABILITY AND FORCING OF FLUXES THROUGH NARES STRAIT AND JONES SOUND:
                             A FRESHWATER EMPHASIS

  Sponsored By The Us National Science Foundation, Office Of Polar Programs, 
                               Arctic Division

Table of Contents

    I. Introduction by Chief Scientist
   II. Science Program Summary
  III. Science party list
   IV. Crew list
    V. Science component reports
       A. CTD-Rosette Hydrography
       B. Internally recording CTD
       C. Kennedy Channel Moorings
       D. Pressure Array
       E. Shipboard ADCP
       F. Bi-valve Retrieval
       G. Coring
       H. Seabeam Mapping
       I. Aviation Science Report
       J. Ice Report
       K. Weather Summary
       L. Inuit Perspective
       M. Photojournalist Perspective
       N. Website Log
       O. Chief Scientist Log 
       P. Recommendations 
       Q. Small Boat Hydrography

INTRODUCTION
Dr. Kelly Kenison Falkner
Chief Scientist
Oregon State University

In the very early hours of July 17, 2003, I arrived at the USCGC Healy moored 
at the fueling pier in St. John’s Newfoundland, Canada to assume my role as 
chief scientist for an ambitious interdisciplinary mission to northern Baffin 
Bay and Nares Strait.  This research cruise constitutes the inaugural field 
program of a five year collaborative research program entitled Variability 
And Forcing Of Fluxes Through Nares Strait And Jones Sound:  A Freshwater 
Emphasis and sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation.  Scientists 
Andreas Muenchow and Dave Huntley of the University of Delaware were already 
on board having met the ship in Curaçao in order to gain familiarity with the 
hull mounted ADCP systems.  Over the next several days, other members of the 
science party arrived in groups and busily prepared science spaces in the 
ship before we set sail on July 2, 2003.

Twenty-five days later, as we are steaming back to Thule, Greenland I am 
happy to report that the cruise has been a resounding success.  We met all of 
our priority science objectives and many additional ones as attested to by 
the pages to follow.  Eighty-three casts of the ctd-rosette package were made 
to produce detailed hydrographic sections along east-west and north-south 
trending tracks in northern Baffin bay, across smith sound, southern Kennedy 
channel and Robeson channel.  Additional casts were made in the heretofore 
un-sampled Peterman Glacier Fiord along its sill and in its deepest area (> 
1000 m) and in deep hall basin (800 m).  Four piston cores that appear to 
extend to the last glacial were taken over the slope off of Bylot Island and 
a gravity core-of-opportunity was taken in deep hall basin.  Eighteen 
moorings were deployed in southern Kennedy Channel to monitor current speed 
and direction as well as temperature and conductivity and ice draft.  Five 
shallow pressure sensor moorings were deployed from small boat with the 
assistance of divers at sites well distributed along and across Nares Strait, 
from smith sound in the south to Robeson Channel in the north.  Bivalves were 
also successfully collected at all of these sites for a project aimed at 
using shell layers to reconstruct chemical conditions in the strait over the 
past few decades.  While ADCP data were logged all along our track, more 
importantly directed surveys were conducted at several locations including 
the coastal current near Thule, Smith Sound, Kennedy Channel, Robeson Channel 
and the Peterman Glacier Fiord sill.  In addition to these priorities, the 
first swath bottom mapping data for the region were collected via the ship’s 
seabeam system and the underway thermosalinograph system was put to good use 
throughout much of the cruise.

Part of our success can be attributed to luck with mother nature.  Winds and 
ice worked largely in our favor as we wound our way northward.  Our winds 
were generally moderate and out of the south and the ice normal to light.  As 
an example of serendipity, we managed to deploy the main mooring array during 
the small window of time in which the ice conditions in southern Kennedy 
Channel were light enough to allow for straightforward anchor last 
deployments.  Of course, as aptly put by science party member Jay Simpkins, 
you can’t benefit from luck unless you are prepared.  In this regard, months 
of planning and hard work by both the science party and the coast guard paid 
off.  Helicopter based reconnaissance and on board consultation with ice 

technician Yves Sivret of the Canadian ice service, and Ed Hudson of the 
Canadian meteorological service in conjunction with the mst’s, contributed 
immeasurably to effective decision making in this challenging environment.  
While we did experience malfunctioning gear, we were nearly always prepared 
to trouble shoot and repair or replace items efficiently.  When sea state 
hampered deck activities, we generally were able to work in a productive 
adcp/seabeam survey mode.  All of this required extensive teamwork among and 
between the science party and Coast Guard personnel.  Ultimately it takes 
dedicated people to get the job done and done well.  I consider myself 
extremely fortunate indeed to have had the privilege of coordinating one of 
the more diverse yet more cohesive science parties that I have encountered in 
over 20 years of seagoing oceanography.  It has been a pleasure working the 
officers and crew of the Healy under captain Dan Oliver.  Their flexibility 
and dedication toward science planning and execution has been key to a 
productive safe mission.

We are committed to making our research program accessible to the public and 
undertook a range of activities on board to facilitate this.  We are happy to 
have had participation of Pauloosie Akeeagok of Grise Fiord, Nunavut, Canada.  
Pauloosie made significant contributions to the science programs and the 
coring in particular.  He also endeavored to teach us some Inuktitut and gave 
an excellent presentation regarding the founding of Nunavut.  The fact that 
Pauloosie was able to sensitize us to several issues in his written 
observations of activities on board underscores the need for Inuit 
participation as we move ahead in arctic science.  Teachers Gerhard Behrens 
and Robert McCarthy were an excellent addition to the science party.  Their 
daily web postings brought home to many the nature of our science and life 
aboard the Healy.  They were cheerfully assisted in this technically 
challenging task by UDel undergraduate Lauren Brown and the Coast Guard 
contracted networking specialist, Joe Digiovanni.  Our talented Canadian 
photojournalist, Lee Narraway, was seen behind the lens throughout much of 
the cruise.  We very much look forward to the articles she is producing.  
Given all of the digital cameras on board, the number of pictures produced 
and shared by us is enormous.  Among them are many stunning shots of the 
seascape, landscape, the ship and people.  To me, this seems befitting of our 
endeavor to better understand a stunning piece of our planet.



SCIENCE PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The Arctic Ocean plays a pivotal role in the global hydrologic cycle by 
returning freshwater, in the form of freshened seawater and ice, to the North 
Atlantic at Fram Strait and through passages of the Canadian Archipelago.  
Available estimates suggest that freshwater fluxes of comparable magnitude 
pass through Fram Strait and the combined three main passages of the 
Archipelago.  Spatial and temporal variability in its delivery potentially 
impacts formation of deepwater in the North Atlantic and thus global 
thermohaline circulation.  Over the past decade it has become clear that 
forces affecting the Arctic freshwater pump have undergone marked changes and 
resultant signals are propagating throughout the North Atlantic.  Concern 
about possible consequences of these changes motivated development of the 
Studies of Environmental ARctic CHange (SEARCH) program and Arctic-Subarctic 
Ocean Flux (ASOF) study.  As a contribution to these initiatives under the 
Arctic Freshwater Cycle Announcement of Opportunity (NSF-02-071), we proposed 
to both quantify and determine driving forces of fluxes though two of the 
three main passages of the Canadian Archipelago, Nares Strait and Jones 
Sound.  These account for about half of the freshwater flux through 
Archipelago, and the remaining Lancaster Sound will be under study by 
colleagues.  The head of Nares Strait sits at the confluence of major water 
mass boundaries within the Arctic that have recently been observed to shift, 
possibly in response to changed atmospheric pressure patterns.  Hence it is 
an excellent location for observing changes in Arctic freshwater output.  
Specifically, our interdisciplinary American-Canadian-Japanese research team 
will apply a combination of proven and innovative technologies to:

  • monitor water properties and currents over a 3.5 year period in Nares 
    St., Cardigan St. and Hell Gate via mooring arrays that resolve 
    barotropic and baroclinic motions at their relevant scales
  • measure ice fluxes through satellite-based and moored observations of ice 
    advection and thickness
  • track remote and local forcing of throughflow via a moored pressure 
    sensor array and mesoscale atmospheric modeling for Nares St.
  • determine water mass origins and transformations via modern tracer 
    hydrographic times series in the straits and Northern Baffin Bay
  • explore bivalve shell records as a proxy of historical throughflow 
    variability and retrieve sediment cores that can used to address longer 
    time-scale variability in future studies
  • exploit the findings of this study to improve parameterization of 
    Archipelago throughflow in Arctic and global models

In terms of broader impacts, our collaborative project takes advantage of 
currently supported research and expertise in Canada and Japan.  Our plan is 
closely coordinated with proposed research by others in the Archipelago 
region.  The collective Canadian Archipelago Throughflow Study (CATS) 
leverages substantial investment by Europeans to document variability in 
Arctic-Atlantic exchanges east of Greenland and on-going American-lead 
efforts to monitor fluxes at Bering Strait.  The first ever, simultaneous 
observations of global-Arctic Ocean exchanges will offer unprecedented 
constraints for testing regional and global models and so improve 
capabilities for prediction the earth system response to rising greenhouse 
gas concentrations.  Our specific study will indicate critical, more 
sustainable measurements that will be needed to reveal the role of the Arctic 
freshwater output in decadal climate variability.  Training the younger 
generation in the know-how of high-latitude research is an essential 
component of this project to assure that the talent will be in place to 
implement and make use of those critical measurements.  Outreach to the 
secondary education and general public levels via teacher participation in 
cruises, media and internet, interactions with local communities, 
undergraduate, graduate and technician training, and communication to the 
broader scientific community are all integral to our research plan.


SCIENCE PARTICIPANT LIST

Last          First          Institution      Position                              Work Phone
  E-mail                                      Address
------------  -------------  ---------------  ------------------------------------  ------------
Falkner       Kelly          OSU              Chief Scientist                       541-737-3625
  kfalkner@coas.oregonstate.edu               COAS-OSU, 104 Ocean Admin Bldg, Corvallis OR 97331
Melling       Humfrey        IOS              Co-chief Sci                          250-363-6552
  MellingH@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca                  240 Memorial Crescent, Victoria BC CA V8S3J2
Akeeagok      Pauloosie      Grise Fiord      Nunavut participant                   864-980-9933
  zipanna@nunanet.com                         P.O. Box 33, Grise Fiord, Nunavut, CA X0A0J0
Azetsu-Scott  Kumiko         BIO              DIC Analyst                           902-494-3604
  Azetsu-ScottK@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca             1631 Preston St., Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA B3H3V2
Behrens       Gerhard        Adams School     Elem Teacher                          541-757-4343
  gerhard_behrens@corvallis.k12.or.us         3358 NW Taylor, Corvallis OR 97330
Brown         Lauren         UDel             Undergrad. Student                    302-593-7911
  brownlm@udel.edu                            15 Ermine Ln, New Castle, DE 19720
Davis         Roger          UH               Seabeam Expert                        808-956-5242
  rbd@hawaii.edu                              7436 Ainanani Pl., Honolulu, HI 96825
Digiovanni    Joe            USCG-civilian    Network Computing                     425-672-9498
  info@thedigiovanniprinciple.com             4003 228th Pl. SW, Mountlake Terrace WA 98043
Forcucci      David          USCG             Science Liaison                       206-217-6648
  DForcucci@pacnorwest.uscg.mil               6486 NE 184th St. Kenmore, WA 98028
Gamble        Frederick      IOS              Mechanical Tech                       250-363-6593
  GambleP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca                       8271 Lochside Dr., Saanichton B.C. CA V8M1T9
Harris        John           IOS              CFC Technician                        250-363-6619
  HarrisJ@dfo-mpo.gc.ca                       4009 Stewart Rd, SaltSpring Isl.BC, CA V8K1Y6
Heil          Clifford, Jr.  URI              Grad. Student                         401-874-6537
  chip@gsosun1.gso.uri.edu                    93B Ninigret Rd, Narragansett, RI 02882
Hubbard       Dale           OSU              Oxygen Analyst                        541-737-8999
  dhubbard@coas.oregonstate.edu               964 SW Western Bv, Corvallis OR 97333
Hudson      Edward           Environment CA   Meteorologist                         780-951-8878
  Edward.Hudson@EC.gc.ca                      6550-112A St., Edmonton, Alberta, CA T6H4R3
Huntley       David          UDel             Mooring                               302-831-8483
  huntleyd@udel.edu                           PO Box 795, 251 Cowan Rd. Rising Sun, MD 21911
Jennings      Joseph, Jr.    OSU              Nutrient Analyst                      541-737-4365
  jenningj@coas.oregonstate.edu               4754 NW Jeanice Pl, Corvallis OR 97330
Johnson       Helen          UVic             Post Doc                              250-472-4008
  helenj@uvic.ca                              4-1041 Charles St, Victoria, British Columbia CA V8S3R1
Kalk          Peter          OSU              Coring Tech                           541-737-2704
  kalk@coas.oregonstate.edu                   33860 SE Peoria Rd, Corvallis OR 97333
Keith         Elinor         UDel             Undergrad. Student                    609-575-2276
  ekeith@princeton.edu                        3107 B. Scholar Dr, Newark DE 19711
Lindsay       Ronald         IOS              Electronics Tech                      250-363-6592
  LindsayR@dfo-mpo.gc.ca                      2900 Queenston St, Victoria B.C. V8R4P5
Macdonald     Robie          IOS              Scientist                             250-363-6409
  MacdonaldRob@dfo-mpo.gc.ca                  5724 Old West Saanich Rd, Victoria, BC CA V9E2H2
McAuliffe     Scott          OSU              Salinity Analyst                      541-737-2500
  smcaulif@coas.oregonstate.edu               830 SW 8th St, Corvallis OR 97333
McCarthy      Robert         Pennsylvania     HS  Teacher                           610-921-8601
  coachmm@penndata.com                        812 Beyer Ave, Reading PA 19605
Meredith      Charlotte      OSU              Head Analyst                          541-737-5644
  cmeredith@coas.oregonstate.edu              1221 NW Hillcrest Dr, Corvallis OR 97330
Moser         John           OSU              Coring Tech                           541-737-5217
  cmoser@coas.oregonstate.edu                 970 NW Highland Terrace Av, Corvallis OR  97330
Muenchow      Andreas        UDel             Scientist                             302-831-0742
  muenchowa@udel.edu                          909 Baylor Dr., Newark  DE 19711
Narraway      Lee            Freelance        Journalist                            613-432-6550
  narrawaylee@sympatico.ca                    RR1, White Lake, Ontario, CA K0A 3L0
O'Brien       Mary           IOS              Technician                            250-363-6716
  obrienm@dfo-mpo.gc.ca                       3529 Salsbury Way, Victoria, B.C. V8P3K7 CA
Ressler       Jason          URI              Grad. Student                         401-874-6572
  jres8015@postoffice.uri.edu                 30 Millstone Dr, Marlborough, CT 06447
Schaffrin     Helga          NYU              Grad. Student                         212-998-3196
  schaffri@cims.nyu.edu                       690 Washington St., Apt 4D, NY, NY 10014
Simpkins      John           OSU              Mooring Tech                          541-737-4659
  jsimpkins@coas.oregonstate.edu              PO Box 571, Corvallis OR 97339
Sivret        Yves           Can Ice Service  Ice Technician                        613-996-0816
  yves.sivret@sympatico.ca                    54 Jardin Private, Ottawa, Ontario CA K1K 4V9
Zweng         Melissa        UDel             Grad. student                         302-831-6959
  zwengm@udel.edu                             815 Leeds Ln, Newark DE 19711


SHIP'S CREW

Permanent Crew, Officers

Capt   Daniel Oliver                    
Cdr    William J. Rall            
Lcdr   Daryl Peloquin              
Lcdr   Gregory Stanclik              
Lt     Robert Clarke                        
Ltjg   Neal Amaral                        
Ltjg   Joseph Castaneda              
Ens    Kevin M. Hasselman            
Ens    Darain S. Kawamoto            
Ens    James Cooley                        
Ens    Sara Runyan                          
Ens    Jason Plumley                        
Cwo2   Richard Mills                    
Cwo4   James A. Robson                
Cwo2   William Levitch                

Tad Crew, Officers

Cdr    Barbara Schoen (Isc Seattle)
Lcdr   Robert Young   (Popdiv)
Lt     Gregory Matyas (Popdiv)
Lt     Gary Naus      (Popdiv)
Lt     Damon Williams (Popdiv)

Permanent Crew, Enlisted

Bmcm   Joseph Gispert                  
Emcm   John P. Mospens                
Etcm   James L. O'brien              
Mstcs  Glen T. Hendrickson      
Fscs   Karl Kaniss                        
Hscs   Kevin Gordon                      
Bmc    James W. Bride                    
Dcc    Peter A. Schaffner            
Emc    Frank R. Donze                    
Etc    Michael F. Mcguire            
Mkc    Joseph Diaz                          
Osc    Lewis Winningham                
Skc    Karl Keyes                              
Ync    Maria Kirby                                
Bm1    Patrick W. Morkis              
Bm1    David J. Grob                      
Dc1    Bianca P. Witkowski          
Em1    Devin D. Pritchard            
Et1    Roger J. Retzlaff              
Et1    Chris Martin                        
Fs1    David P. Casteel                
It1    Stephen A. Chipman            
Mk1    Chad J. Serfass                  
Mk1    Justin P. Fitzpatrick      
Mk1    Michael Weaver                    
Mk1    Garrett Rogers                    
Mst1   Bridget A. Cullers          
Sk1    Susan M. Peterson              
Bm2    James Geist                          
Bm2    Darrel L. Bresnahan          
Bm2    John C. Lobherr                  
Dc2    Paul Thomas                          
Dc2    Todd A. Gillick                  
Em2    Benjamin Garrett                
Em2    Brad Jopling                        
Em2    Joseph Fratto                      
Et2    Joshua J. Rasmussen            
Et2    Ryan P. Macneil                  
Et2    Timothy Marvin                    
Fs2    Joseph J. Stoddard          
Mk2    Richard Titus                    
Mk2    Martin A. Bowley                
Mk2    John W. Tebo                        
Mst2   Joshua T. Robinson          
Mst2   Daniel Gaona                      
Os2    Elizabeth Neill                
Sk2    Christopher Sisson            
Bm3    Scott A Lussier                  
Bm3    Adam Gunter                          
Fs3    Jonathan D. Scott              
Fs3    Vanessa A. Agosto              
Fs3    Johnny M Hanika                  
Mk3    Timothy B. Gogolla            
Mk3    Richard Erickson                
Mk3    Michael J. Lund                  
Mk3    Malinda A. Nesvold              
Mk3    Brandon S. Schreck            
Mst3   Suzanne Scriven                
Fn     Robert J. Brock                    
Sn     Heidi M. Schumann                
Sn     Trevor A. Hughes                  
Sn     Garrett Young                        
Sn     Jonathan Bilby                      
Fa     Tomasz M. Dawlidowicz        
Fa     Shawn Chapin                          
Sa     Robert Troha                        
Sa     Sheryll Comonpearce                  
Sa     Gaylin Swibold                    

Tad Crew, Enlisted

Amtc   Lorion Ledkins (Popdiv)
Amt1   Trevin Dabney  (Popdiv)
Amt1   Raymond O'dell (Popdiv)
Avt2   John Maghupoy  (Popdiv)


125  Total Onboard
015  Officers (Perm Party)
005  Officers (Tad)
068  Enlisted (Perm Party)
004  Enlisted (Tad)
033  Civilians


CTD-ROSETTE HYDROGRAPHY




CTD-ROSETTE HYDROGRAPHY
Dr. Kelly Kenison Falkner
Oregon State University


1.  OVERVIEW

Hydrographic sampling was conducted by means of equipment provided by the 
Coast Guard.  The MST’s interfaced with the bridge for deck operations, 
operated the winch, took care of emptying and cocking the bottles, resetting 
the pylon, and cleaning the optical windows and undertook trouble-shooting as 
required.  Both the electronics technicians of the Coast Guard crew and 
science party contributed to trouble shooting when needed as well.  The 
science party determined the locations and modes of sampling, operated the 
Sea-Bird software, recorded information on each cast in a hand written cast 
sheet, archived the data electronically and sampled the rosette.  A total of 
79 casts were made.  Numbers 25 and 27 are missing from the sequence as we 
attempted to intersperse internally recording CTD casts in our numbering 
scheme.  We abandoned such an approach after cast 27.  Chi Meredith of OSU 
served as "sample cop" at the rosette operation.  She directed the sampling 
and assured that the hydrocast logsheets were filled out correctly for each 
sampled cast.  Water samples were not taken from all bottles at all casts.  
Every time a Niskin was sampled, a bottle salinity was drawn and run on 
board.  Detailed information on the cast locations and which parameters were 
sampled from the casts can be found in the HydrocastList and RosSampRecord 
spreadsheets respectively.  These spreadsheets are digitized versions of the 
hand entered logsheets created during the cruise.
  

2.  EQUIPMENT SPECIFICS

A.  Pre-HLY031

During the transit leg between Puerto Vallarta and Panama, under contract to 
the Coast Guard, Carl Mattson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in 
conjunction with the MST’s performed tests on hydrographic equipment.  He 
issued a report (that is available through Dave Forcucci) on Healy 
hydrographic systems.  Certain items from his report are summarized or 
reproduced here.

It was necessary to cut over 1000 m of cable on winch #1 to leave the systems 
in working order.  Over 9400 m of viable cable remain, however.  Carl 
reported that, in general, all hydrographic equipment on Healy was found to 
be in very good condition and well maintained. All CTD Sensors, 
thermosalinographs and autosals were recently calibrated at the appropriate 
facility. Spare parts kits for all equipment is well stocked. Lab areas were 
clean and well organized.

After the completion of work by Carl and the MST’s on July1, there were two 
fully operational CTD/Rosette systems. There is a third rosette that still 
needs a part of a frame in order to make it operational.  Details for the 
systems and tests follow.


CTD/Rosette System #1    24 Place 12 Liter bottles   1 July 2003

                                                                       Calibration 
Description             MFG             Model          Serial no.      Date
----------------------  --------------  -------------  --------------  -----------
Carousel                Sea-Bird        SBE32          3224152-0348    N/a
  24 Bottle Frame
CTD                     Sea-Bird        SBE9Plus       09P24152-0638       
CTD Pressure            Paroscientific  Digiquartz     83009           09-Jan-01
Primary Temperature     Sea-Bird        SBE3Plus       03P2796         04-May-03
Primary Conductivity    Sea-Bird        SBE4C          042545          15-May-03
Secondary Temperature   Sea-Bird        SBE3Plus       03P2824         04-May-03
Secondary Conductivity  Sea-Bird        SBE4C          042568          16-May-03
Pump1                   Sea-Bird        SBE5T          053112          N/a
Pump2                   Sea-Bird        SBE5T          053114          N/a
Oxygen                  Sea-Bird        SBE43          0430459         15-May-03
Transmissometer         Wetlabs         Cstar          CST-390DR       19-Dec-00
Fluorometer             Chelsea         AquaTrackaIII  088233          19-Mar-01
Altimeter               Benthos         916D           872             N/a
Water Samplers          OceanTest       110            N/a             N/a
  24 EA 12 Liters       Equipment Inc.
  External springs      

System #1 is the primary rosette system.

Carl disconnected and inspected all underwater cables and bulkhead 
connectors. On CTD #638 he discovered corrosion on several of the CTD 
bulkhead connectors and the mating cable assemblies. He cleaned corrosion off 
the connectors and determined that the connectors were not damaged to the 
point that they needed to be replaced. Every connector on the CTD, sensors 
and carousel was inspected, cleaned and properly lubricated.

Carl reconnected all cables. He connected test cable to deck unit. He powered 
up the CTD system and checked for proper operation. He tested CTD, 
transmissometer, fluorometer, altimeter and oxygen sensor for proper 
operation. He tested pumps for proper operation and verified that they turned 
on after at least one minute after salt water was inserted into conductivity 
cell.

Carl tested Sea-Bird carousel for proper operation and actuated each bottle 
location to ensure that each latch released as it should.

The Niskin bottles were all in good condition. They all are configured with 
external springs. Water tests performed on all 24 bottles. Bottles were 
filled. Testing involved opening the spigot while the vent remained closed. 
Tests indicated there are no leaky bottles.


CTD/Rosette System #2    24 Place 12 Liter bottles    1 July 2003

                                                                       Calibration
Description             MFG             Model          Serial no.      Date
----------------------  --------------  -------------  --------------  -----------
24 Bottle Frame         Sea-Bird        SBE32          3224152-0347     N/a
CTD                     Sea-Bird        SBE9Plus       09P24152-0639      
CTD Pressure            Paroscientific  Digiquartz     83012            09-Jan-01
Primary Temperature     Sea-Bird        SBE3Plus       03P2841          04-May-03
Primary Conductivity    Sea-Bird        SBE4C          042561           02-May-03
Secondary Temperature   Sea-Bird        SBE3Plus       03P2945          01-May-03
Secondary Conductivity  Sea-Bird        SBE4C          042575           02-May-03
Pump1                   Sea-Bird        SBE5T          053115           N/a
Pump2                   Sea-Bird        SBE5T          053116           N/a
Oxygen                  Sea-Bird        SBE43          0430458          21-May-03
Transmissometer         Wetlabs         Cstar          CST-436DR        30-Mar-01
Fluorometer             Chelsea         AquaTrackaIII  088234           19-Mar-01
Altimeter               Benthos         916D           843              N/a
Water Sampler           OceanTest       110            N/a              N/a
  24 EA 12 Liters       Equipment Inc.
  External Springs


CTD System #2 was converted from a 12PL 30L system to a 24PL 12L system. Carl 
is connected and inspected all underwater cables and bulkhead connectors. 
Every connector on the CTD, sensors and carousel was inspected, cleaned and 
properly lubricated.

Carl reconnected all cables. He connected test cable to deck unit. He powered 
up the CTD system and checked for proper operation. He tested the CTD, 
transmissometer, fluorometer, altimeter and oxygen sensor for proper 
operation. He tested pumps for proper operation and verified that they turned 
on after at least one minute after salt water was inserted into conductivity 
cell.

He tested Sea-Bird carousel for proper operation and actuated each bottle 
location to ensure that each latch released as it should.

The Niskin bottles are all in good condition. They all are configured with 
external springs. Water tests performed on all 24 bottles. Bottles were 
filled. Testing involved opening the spigot while the vent remained closed. 
Tests indicated there are two leaky bottles.

There were two autosals on Healy.

Description               MFG        Model  Serial no.  Cal Date
------------------------  ---------  -----  ----------  ---------
Autosal                   Guildline  8400B  65-715  
Autosal (From Polarstar)  Guildline  8400B  65-743      28-May-03


Carl set up both autosals in BIO lab.  He filled the tanks and let 
temperature stabilize.

Autosal #65-743

He noticed that this autosal would not temperature stabilize. After doing 
some checking Carl discovered that the rear panel fan was not working.  He 
opened the rear panel and found that the rear motor was disconnected.  He 
reconnected the motor and after a period of time the machine was able to 
stabilize.

After the machine stabilized , the following checks were performed.
    1. Bath thermistor operation
    2. Pump operation
    3. Conductivity Zero and Gain
    4. Sample water analysis and stability of conductivity ratio

Testing showed that the conductivity gain setting is somewhat off. It is off 
by about 3-4 units. The allowable tolerance is 0-1 units.

Autosal #65-715

The following checks were performed.
    1. Bath thermistor operation
    2. Pump operation
    3. Conductivity Zero and Gain
    4. Sample water analysis and stability of conductivity ratio

Autosal #65-715 seems to be the most stable of the two although both machines 
work ok. Running the same seawater samples on both autosal machines Carl got 
about the same conductivity ratio values.  Depending on the salinity of the 
sample, differences in conductivity readings can be as much as +/- 0.00003.  
This would equate to about +/- 0.0006 in salinity units. This small 
difference is probably due to the gain setting error on #65-743. 

Carl attached ACI2000 Interfaces to each autosal.  He checked out a Laptop 
from the Computer lab and hooked it into one of the autosal interfaces.  
After the ACI2000 software was loaded he tried to acquire data.  He could 
receive the data string but the field that contains the conductivity ratio is 
always zero no matter what number the autosal displayed.  He connected the 
other ACI2000 Interface and obtained the same result on both autosals.

The problem was determined to be in the autosals and not in the ACI2000 
Interface boxes.  After some checking, Carl found that a wrong integrated 
circuit was installed in the data output circuitry.  The wrong IC was also 
installed in the other autosal AND … on the spare circuit card in the spares 
kit.  He located a similar but not exact part on another circuit card in the 
spares kit and installed it in one of the autosals.  He then tried the 
interface and everything worked ok.  The data stream came out with all data 
fields.

The ACI2000 Interface worked ok on autosal #65-743 with the right IC.  He 
transferred the IC to 65-715.  It works for the most part but the datalog 
switch on 65-715 seems to be miswired as it doesn’t function as it should.  
The result is erratic logging of the data when using the ACI2000 software on 
#65-715.

Carl installed the SIO autosal logging software on the laptop and it works ok 
on both autosals.  The SIO software doesn’t utilize the autosal datalog 
switch so it works well on 65-715.  It also works with the ACI2000 Interface.  
Both SIO and ACI2000 software is installed so the user can take their pick.

The part needed to fix the Autosal interface is Z311 located on the Meter 
PCB.  It can be obtained at any electronics distributor.

Manufacturer Bourns  part no. 4116R-2-102

Training on the operation and care of autosals was given to all MST’s.  
Topics included:

    1. Preparing the autosal for use
    2. Conducting operational checks prior to use
    3. Operating the Autosal using the OSI ACI2000 logging software
    4. Operating the Autosal using the SIO logging software
    5. Autosal standardization
    6. Running samples
    7. End standard check
    8. Procedures to be taken after using the autosal
    9. Packing and storing the autosal

After the training, all of the MST’s participated in running the samples 
obtained from the CTD test casts. The autosal used to run the salinity 
samples was #65-715.  Samples obtained from the underway system for checks on 
the thermosalinographs were also completed.

Action item: Procure correct parts to repair Autosal interfaces on both 
autosals and spare board.


B.  During HLY031

As the science party embarked for the HLY031 mission, Chief Scientist Kelly 
Falkner informed them that Autosal #65-715 and CTD System #1 would be used 
for the mission.  


1.  Autosal

Autosal #65-715 was moved into a climate control chamber on July 20 and the 
automated data collection system disabled.  The climate control chamber 
initially experienced regular positive temperature spiking of 10's of 
degrees.  This was due to improper programming for room temperature 
operation.  The temperature was set to 24 deg C, defrosting disabled and then 
the chamber maintained very stable temperatures throughout the remainder of 
the cruise.  It is noted that filtration for trace metal samples was also 
carried out in the climate control chamber.  The stable temperatures resulted 
in excellent stability for the autosal the bath temperature of which was set 
at 27 deg C.  The autosal required but small calibration adjustments 
infrequently (once every several days to weeks).  We experienced only one 
malfunctioning incident when the cell failed to flush.  Upon opening the 
instrument a loose connection for the flushing tubing was noted and 
corrected.  The instrument produced excellent data to the advertised 
precision throughout the cruise. The OSU group established a log book for 
this instrument that was left with the ship.


2.  CTD-Rosette

On July 20, Kelly instructed Chi Meredith to replace all O-rings on the 
bottles of CTD System #1 with red silicone rubber variants that had been acid 
cleaned and baked for compatibility with trace metal and CFC analysis.  Jay 
Simpkins and the MST’S then added the “ZAPS” DOC-sensor to the CTD-system #1 
sensor array.  ZAPS stands for zero-angle photon sensor.  ZAPS is a fiber-
optic based fluorometer designed by and run on behalf of OSU Investigator 
Gary Klinkhammer.  ZAPS was configured to excite and monitor for wavelengths 
characteristic of dissolved organic matter and nominally draws 300 mA.  ZAPS 
had been successfully deck tested for compatibility with the Sea-Bird CTD in 
Seattle in June 2003 before Healy left port.  While in port in St. John’s, it 
was mounted below the bottles on the rosette frame.  It was connected to the 
CTD via a Y-cable shared with the dissolved O2-sensor provided by OSU.  Deck 
testing of the package indicated all sensors to be recording within the 
expected ranges and no data losses to be occurring.  Unfortunately, no 
simultaneous, sensible, in-the-water ZAPS and O2 data were obtained during 
this mission.  For the first few casts, ZAPS appeared to be recording 
properly but the O2 data was nonsensical.  In retrospect, this situation 
appears to have been a short cause by a leak in the connector.  In fact, we 
experienced several problems with the CTD-system that probably were due to 
shorts caused by leaks at the connectors.  These occurred despite the proper 
greasing and “burping” of the connectors and actually resulted in the 
malfunctioning of CTD System #1 including the deck unit at cast 51.  After 
much trouble-shooting, CTD System #1 was declared non-functioning and it and 
its sensors were replaced by placing CTD System #2 on rosette frame #1.  For 
further specific details regarding the equipment, please refer to the 
comments lines in HydrocastInfo spreadsheet.

We also note that somewhere around cast 50, bottle salinities suggested that 
we might be having trouble with random tripping of bottles.  Humfrey Melling 
had experienced this problem last year with another Sea-Bird pylon and was 
advised by Sea-Bird to regularly remove and clean the block holding the pylon 
in place.  We removed and soaked the block in detergent and rinsed it 
copiously in freshwater.  On reinspection of the data post cruise, it appears 
that we had 3 to 5 such random trips.  These are noted in the HydrocastList 
spreadsheet comments.  None occurred after cleaning the pylon block.


3.  Mode of Operation

The science party engaged in much discussion of the optimal way in which to 
conduct water sampling during the CTD-rosette up cast.  Humfrey Melling 
advocated that in his experience, tripping bottles "on the fly" took less 
time and avoided wake issues associated with the package.  As long as the 
package speed is constant, samples tripped on the fly should display a 
predictable offset distance from properties recorded at the CTD sensors.  
Other people were more used to the convention of bringing the rosette to a 
desired trip depth and waiting some specific amount of time.  Since time was 
at a premium, the chief scientist decide to give Humfrey's approach a try and 
to compare bottle sensor data with measured bottle salinities as a check on 
the validity of such an approach.  

As data were accumulated, Humfrey's claims appeared to be born out.  Without 
even correcting for the vertical offset, bottle salinities appeared to be 
within acceptable limits of sensor salinities except perhaps in the very 
surface where gradients were largest.  

There remained some discomfort among the science party about the approach and 
so we took the opportunity to compare profiles collected in one location "on 
the fly" and with a 5-minute stop at each bottle depth at casts 16 and 17.  
Again, a comparison of bottle salinities with the sensors reflected favorably 
on the "on the fly" approach with considerable savings of time (2 hours per 
cast).  

For the remainder of the cruise, we used this approach.  Typically the 
package was lowered at a rate of 30 m/min for the first 100 m and then 60 
m/min to the deepest desired depth.  The first bottle was tripped either 
immediately or within 1 minute of acquiring the deepest depth.  We generally 
used the altimeter as the indication of when to terminate the cast at either 
at 10 or 15 m above the bottom.  The package was then raised at 60 m/min 
through the water column to 100 m and bottles tripped "on the fly".  As doing 
so made things go quite quickly, it was useful to have two operators, one 
controlling the software and the other hand recording target trip depths on 
the logsheet.  At 100 m, the ascent rate was slowed to 30 m/min and the 
remaining bottles tripped on the fly.






APPENDIX:    FACTORY SBE43 CALIBRATION COEFFICIENTS


                            CASTS 1-50   CASTS 51-81
                             S/N 0459     S/N 0458
                            15-May-2003  21-May-2003
                            -----------  -----------
                 Soc =       0.3522       0.3786
                 Voffset =  -0.4827      -0.4901
                 Tcor =      0.0015       0.0014
                 Pcor =      1.350e-04    1.350e-04
                 τRT =       1.2          1.4



REFERENCES:

García, H. E., and Gordon, L. I. 1992. Oxygen solubility in seawater: Better 
    fitting equations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 37: 1307-1312.

HLY031 Cruise Report.

HLY031 CTD Bottle Processing Report. 

HLY031 CTD Data Processing Report. 

Weiss, R. F. 1970. The solubility of nitrogen, oxygen and argon in water and 
    seawater. Deep-Sea Res. 17: 721-735.



INTERNALLY RECORDING CTD DATA





PRELIMINARY REPORT ON CTD DATA COLLECTION
Melissa Zweng
Graduate College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware, Aug 14 2003


INTRODUCTION

The data were taken with an Ocean Sensors 200 Conductivity-Temperature-Depth 
sensor (OS200). This instrument consists of three different sensors: a 
conductivity sensor, a temperature sensor, and a pressure sensor. The OS200 
has the advantage of being highly portable as well as easily and quickly 
deployable, so it was used for quick casts in between stations and casts by 
hand from the small boat.

 
DATA COLLECTION

The instrument was deployed in one of two ways: attached to a frame that was 
lowered into the water by crane or hand; or strapped onto the CTD rosette. 
During each deployment, time, raw voltages from the sensors, and the 
instrument’s pressure value were recorded. (The instrument does not recognize 
dates after 1999, so date stamps are MM/DD/90, when they ought to be MM/ 
DD/03. The names of the files have the correct year.) After each set of 
casts, the instrument was plugged into a computer and the data was uploaded.

 
DATA PROCESSING

The data were processed using the calibration coefficients below to obtain 
temperature and conductivity. Salinity and density were calculated using the 
1978 Practical Salinity Scale and Gill, 1981.

Equations to obtain engineering units from raw voltages and calibration 
coefficients:

Conductivity = A + B(CR0 – CR6)
Temperature = A + B(ln(CR3-CR6)) + C(ln(CR3-CR6))2 + D(ln(CR3-CR6))3
Pressure = A + B(CR1-CR6)

Note that testing the OS200 against the forward TSG and CTD rosette revealed 
that the instrument is properly calibrated for temperature but not for 
conductivity and pressure. However, the values for pressure that the unit 
outputs and the pressure calculated from the equation and calibration 
coefficients above are different. The casts titled 7-27-03_OS200_X_TSD.txt 
were obtained by attaching the OS200 to the CTD rosette. The pressure that 
the unit outputs and that from the rosette agree, so I assume that the output 
pressure is correct and include that value in the data file, as well as using 
it for the salinity and density calculations.


Calibration Coefficients

                  A              B              C              D
            -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
     COND   +2.865658E-01  +8.175572E+01  +0.000000E+00  +0.000000E+00
     TEMP   -1.308210E+01  -2.032210E+01  +1.598410E+00  +2.676918E-02
     PRESS  +8.904581E+01  +2.137851E+04  +0.000000E+00  +0.000000E+00

Columns in files: Date, Time, CR0, CR1, CR3, CR6, Pressure, Conductivity, 
Temperature, Salinity, Density


                  
File name                UTZ Time and Info               Latitude N   Longitude W
-----------------------  ------------------------------  -----------  ------------
7-27-03_OS200_1_TSD.txt  13:18 (on rosette cast BEW 9)   72° 24.71’   073° 10.19’
7-27-03_OS200_2_TSD.txt  15:22 (on rosette cast BEW 10)  72° 23.02’   073° 50.15’
7-31-03_OS200_TSD.txt    22:17                           75° 53.959’  067° 00.405’
8-02-03_OS200_TSD.txt    22:21                           78° 22.237’  072° 57.558’
8-10-03_OS200_1_TSD.txt  22:36 Off ey Island             81° 17.808’  061° 43.904’
8-10-03_OS200_2_TSD.txt  (8-11-03) 00:44 Off ey Island   81° 18.408’  061° 48.810’
8-10-03_OS200_3_TSD.txt  (8-11-03) 01:41 Off ey Island   81° 18.408’  061° 48.810’
8-12-03_OS200_TSD.txt    18:24 Scorseby Bay              79° 54.65’   071° 21.40’




PROCESSING SBE9 DATA 
Humfrey Melling
Oregon State University 
May 15 2006 


PROJECT 

This expedition was the result of DFO collaboration (Dr H Melling) with 
Oregon State University (Dr. Kelly Falkner and University of Delaware (Dr 
Andreas Münchow) in the US NSF-funded project, “Variability and Forcing of 
Fluxes through Nares Strait and Jones Sound: A Freshwater Emphasis”. The 
observations were collected during 26 July to 11 August 2003 from the USCGC 
Healy. 

The objective was study of the exchanges of seawater, including added fresh 
water, heat, and trace chemical constituents, through Nares Strait from the 
Arctic to Baffin Bay. During the period of the hydrographic survey, 25 
moorings were positioned with instruments to measure current, ice drift, 
seawater temperature and salinity, ice thickness and spatial gradients in 
hydrostatic pressure. The instruments were set to record data at least hourly 
for 2-3 years. 


CONFIGURATION 

This survey was conducted from the rosette station of the USCGC Healy, using 
SBE9 equipment from the ship. The CTD was powered on deck and then submerged 
for a minute or two to permit stabilization of the SBE pumping system and 
sensor checks. The rosette station on the Healy is just forward of the 
propellers on the starboard side. At this location, the upper ocean may be 
seriously churned up by the screws during positioning of the ship for the 
rosette cast. At times we could detect significant disturbance to a depth of 
15 m (inversion in density, erratic profiles, erratic temperature-salinity 
correlation). For this reason, we frequently started profiles at 10-m depth, 
although some data acquired as shallow as 2-3 m seem reasonable. In other 
cases, data have been removed in processing down to 15-m depth. 

The upper 100 m of the cast was conducted at a drop speed of 0.5 m/s. At 100-
m depth, the descent rate was increased to 1 m/s. The rosette was again 
slowed to 0.5 m/s when the altimeter indicated seabed proximity (typically at 
50-75 m of the bottom). The slow rate of descent, intended to provide higher 
resolution in upper-ocean data, was problematic. Even modest waves in Baffin 
Bay slowed the descent sufficiently that the CTD-rosette was periodically 
engulfed by its wake. This introduced anomalous pulses in the measured 
profiles, which had to be removed by cut out in editing. 

Water samples were acquired on the up-cast, with the rosette rising at a 
nominal 1 m/s. The package was not stopped at sampling levels; bottles were 
closed on the fly. The intent of this approach was avoidance of wake 
sampling, with the added benefit of much reduced station time. Samples were 
drawn for the bottles for a variety of geochemical analyses; of these only 
salinity, analyzed on board via Guildline Autosal in a temperature-controlled 
room, is of concern here. 



SEA-BIRD SBE-9 CTD EQUIPMENT 

Two Sea-Bird CTD systems were used. Each was equipped with tandem sensors for 
temperature (SBE3) and conductivity (SBE4), in independent pumped (SBE5) 
ducts and single sensors for pressure (SBE29), for dissolved oxygen (SBE43, 
pumped from the secondary TC duct), for chlorophyll fluorescence (Chelsea 
Instruments Aqua 3), for light transmissivity (Chelsea Cstar) and for seabed 
proximity (Benthos Echo sounder). The sampling rate was 24 Hz. 

System A was used for casts 1-50, when it experienced catastrophic failure in 
association with a leak of the under-water power connector. System B was used 
for casts 51-81. 

The light transmissivity sensor on System B was unstable. There are no 
transmittance data available for profiles 51-81. 

The temporal response of the primary temperature sensor slowed significantly 
partway through cast 33, perhaps because of biological fouling of the 
thermistor pin. The slowed response impeded effective time-response matching 
with conductivity for calculating salinity. For this reason, data from the 
secondary temperature-salinity system were used in preference to the primary 
system for casts 33-47, 49 and 50. 

                           Sea-Bird SBE-9 System A      Sea-Bird SBE-9 System B 
                         ---------------------------  --------------------------- 
Variable                 Serial No  Calibration Date  Serial No  Calibration Date  Channel
-----------------------  ---------  ----------------  ---------  ----------------  -------
Temperature:Primary         2796       4 May 2003        2841       4 May 2003     Freq 0
Conductivity:Primary        2545      15 May 2003        2561       2 May 2003     Freq 1
Pressure                   83009       9 Jan 2001       83012       9 Jan 2001     Freq 2
Temperature:Secondary       2824       4 May 2003        2945       1 May 2003     Freq 3
Conductivity:Secondary      2568      16 May 2003        2575       2 May 2003     Freq 4
Oxygen:SBE                  0459      15 May 2003        0458      21 May 2003     Volt 1
Transmissometer:Primary    390DR      19 Dec 2000       436DR      30 Mar 2001     Volt 2
Fluorometer (Chelsea)     088233      19 Mar 2001      088234      19 Mar 2001     Volt 4
Altimeter (Benthos)  


SUMMARY OF PROCESSING 

File 
exten-
sion    Processing step                          Generated by … 
------  ---------------------------------------  -----------------------------
Hex     Field logging                            SeaSave-Win32 
Cnv     Convert to ASCII from hexadecimal        Data conversion 
                                                  (SBEDataProcessing-Win32)  
Ios     Convert to IOS header format             Convert Sea-Bird ASCII Files
                                                  (IOSSHELL SBE_IOS)
Clip    Remove unwanted records from file        Clip records (IOSSHELL CLIP) 
Edt     Correct data spikes by interpolation     View edit (IOSSHELL VIEWEDIT) 
Shf1    Shift C1 values to later time            Delay C1 by 0.4 scans 
                                                  (IOSSHELL SHIFTDAT)  
Shf1&2  Shift C2 values to earlier time          Advance C2 by 1.3 scans 
                                                  (IOSSHELL SHIFTDAT)    
Avp     Smooth pressure values                   5-point running average 
                                                  (IOSSHELL FILTERS)  
Ctm1    Computes primary cell temperature        Compute cell temperature 
                                                  (IOSSHELL CELLTM) 
Ctm1&2  Computes secondary cell temperature      Compute cell temperature 
                                                  (IOSSHELL CELLTM) 
Cal     Calibration using T1C1 or T2 C2 for S    Calibration 
                                                  (IOSSHELL CALIBRATE) 
Dat     Create files w/o DO sensor voltage       Remove channels 
                                                  (IOSSHELL REMOVECH) 
Calo    Duplicate file with p, S, T, DO volts    Remove channels  
         (see below)                              (IOSSHELL REMOVECH)
View    Interactive T & S editing of wake &      View edit  
          ship effects                            (IOSSHELL VIEWEDIT)
Bas     Remove unneeded channels                 Remove channels 
                                                  (IOSSHELL REMOVECH) 
Bin     Average data within 0.2-db bins          Bin averaging 
                                                  (IOSSHELL BINAVE) 
Final   Calculate depth, potential temperature,  Derived quantities  
         gamma                                    (IOSSHELL DERIVE)


Processing Notes 

1)  Verify station information - date, time, latitude, longitude, water depth, 
    number of samples and summarize in a spreadsheet. 

2)  Convert hex files to ascii form (cnv for profiles & ros for bottle closing 
    depths) using SBE Data Processing 5.25, Data Conversion 

3)  Convert cnv files to IOSSHELL format 

4)  Add an "Event Number: " line in *.ios files. 

5)  Plot all channels of raw signal data against sample number for general 
    assessment of sensor operation, data spiking, etc. Look for spiking, fall 
    speed reversals by surface waves and other irregularities. 

    Wave influence is appreciable during casts 1-3, 14-24, 26, 28 and 31. 
    There are fall-speed reversals in profiles 16-21 and appreciable fall-
    speed variation in 15 & 22-24. 

    There are jumps in pressure of about 0.5 db in profile 49, at 29 and 104 
    db. 

    In general, the pressure records are noisy. Smoothing pressure by running 
    average over 5 scans is recommended. 

    The values for % transmission dropped down by 12% at cast 51 and shifted 
    up by 21% at cast 61 (values based on maximum transmittance). The shifts 
    at minimum transmittance are consistent with these values, but greater 
    variability in the minimum value precludes an accurate estimate. However, 
    the high values of maximum transmittance for cast 61 et seq. are 
    associated with clipping of the transmittance signal at 80%. There are 
    also uncharacteristic broad smooth dips in transmittance centered on 
    depths between 150-250 m. It appears that the transmissometer on CTD B was 
    unreliable, For this reason the transmittance channel is deleted from 
    casts 51-81. 

6)  Identify the scans to be used from each file. 

7)  Use IOSSHELL CLIP programme to remove unwanted scans from each file. 

    Certain profiles have problems during the upper few tens of metres on the 
    first drop. These are likely a result of the severe disturbance of the 
    upper 10-20 m of the water column by the ship’s propellers. These profile 
    sections have been discarded. 

8)  Examine the profiles for unreasonable ‘spikes’ in value. This is a 
    subjective procedure based on the interactive use of the IOSSHELL VIEWEDIT 
    programme, which is used to interpolate or assign values at spikes. 
    Pressure: No spikes 
    
    Temperature 1 & 2 and conductivity 1 & 2: Edited for spikes 
 
    Fluorescence and transmissivity: In general NOT edited for spikes. 
    Negative-going spikes may indicate ingestion of plankton. One positive 
    going spike was edited in cast 49. Channels are used qualitatively. 

    DO voltage: No spikes, but the DO voltage in profile 1 wraps around from 
    0V to 5V at very low values. Values at such occurrences are set to zero. 

9)  Select profiles suited to the determination of TIMING ADJUSTMENTS for T & 
    C. With two SBE9s, each with tandem TC assemblies, there are 4 different 
    configurations requiring assessment. 

    Note that different values are appropriate for the primary and secondary 
    TC systems. First, there is a 1.5-scan timing advance of primary 
    conductivity implemented via hardware for the primary system within the 
    SBE9, but not for the secondary system (see Manual for the SBE9). Second, 
    the flow rate through the secondary system is likely slower, because the 
    SBE43 DO sensor is plumbed to it. 


    For CTD A, casts 18 and 47 have suitable characteristics for evaluation of 
    timing. For CTD B, only cast 72 is suitable. Casts 60 and 80 can be used 
    for independent assessment of choices. Results are derived from careful 
    inspection of C, T and S relative to Scan No at times of rapid 
    transitions. 

    For cast 47, C2 lags C1 by about 2.5 scans; T2 lags T1 by about 1 scan; C1 
    leads T1 by about 1 scan; C2 leads T2 by about 0.5 scan (not a clear 
    result). 

    For cast 18 (at scans 13500-15000), T2 lags by about 0.5-1 scan relative 
    to T1, but may respond slightly faster; C2 lags by slightly more than 2 
    scans relative to C1, but may respond faster; T1 lags C1 by about 0.5 
    scan; T2 leads C2 by about 1.5 scan. 

    C1 at 0.0; T1 at 0.5 scan lag; T2 at 0.0-0.5 scan lag; C2 at 2.0 scan lag 
    (1.5 scans after T2) 

    For cast 71 (CTD B), no lag between T1 & T2; C2 lags C1 by 2-3 scans; C2 
    lags T2 by 1.5 scans; C1 lags T1 by 0.5 scans. 

    Experiment with profiles 18, 60, 72 & 80: Best results come by advancing 
    primary conductivity by -0.4 scans and secondary conductivity by 1.3 scans 

10) Select profiles suited to the determination of TIMING LAG for DO voltage. 
    The lag results from the time required to flush the tubing connecting the 
    C-cell to the DO cell. Suitable profiles have a sharp transition in T and 
    S, with indication of an associated abrupt change in DO (i.e. exponential 
    roll-off). 

    Only two instances were found, in casts 9 and 41, both by CTD A. The 
    apparent delays in response by the SBE43 were 25 and 22 scans 
    respectively (i.e. about 1 second). A value of 24 scans was adopted for 
    use. 

11) The Sea-Bird CONDUCTIVITY CELL and its mounting (SBE4) have significant 
    HEAT CAPACITY. Cooling occurs over many seconds following passage from a 
    warm layer into a cold layer. Some heat from the cell is conducted into 
    the water passing through it, raising its temperature and therefore its 
    conductivity. Since this change in temperature is not sensed by the 
    thermistor, values of salinity calculated from raw data on a 
    progressively cooling profile are too high (and vice versa). 

    Hydrographic profiles suited to the empirical determination of the 
    correction for cell temperature are rare. A virtually two-layer structure 
    was measured by SBE19 in Bering Strait in 1998 (Cast 1998-26-0050). The 
    temperature gradient was about -1.2 C per db sustained over 5 db. Values 
    of 12.0 s for the C-cell thermal time constant and 0.018 for the 
    contribution factor α gave the best results for the SBE19. 

    Best estimates for the SBE4 conductivity module used on the SBE25, based 
    on similar analysis, are 9.5-s for the thermal time constant and 0.0245 
    for the contribution factor α. 

12) CALIBRATION of PRESSURE: Extract the value of pressure when the C-cell 
    has drained after the cast (easy using <digitize> feature of Grapher). 

    The standard deviation of values is about 0.15 db for each of the two 
    SBE9s. The mean values are -0.39 db for CTD A and -0.45 db for CTD B. 
    These values define the calibration offsets for pressure for casts 1-50 
    (0.39 db) and for casts 51-81 (0.45 db). 

13) Check on CALIBRATION for TEMPERATURE: There was no facility for in situ 
    calibration of temperature. Since the calibrations of aged thermistors 
    are generally stable, we are content with consistency checks. The 
    consistency of temperature values from the SBE4 sensors of the two CTDs 
    was assessed based on values from deep, uniform waters in Baffin Bay (CTD 
    A, cast 9) and in Hall Basin (CTD B, cast 69). Wake effects were judged 
    negligible on both profiles. 

    On CTD A, thermistor 2 reads warmer than thermistor 1 by only 0.35 m°C 

    On CTD B, thermistor 2 reads warmer than thermistor 1 by only 0.3 m°C 

14) Check on CALIBRATION for CONDUCTIVITY (viz.salinity): Salinity calculated 
    from the sensors on the SBE9 probe are compared with values analyzed from 
    water samples. The correspondence between the depth at which the sample 
    was acquired and the CTD data stream was established via a procedure 
    discussed in the next section. 

    In general, the flushing of sampling bottles on a rosette is a turbulent 
    (i.e. stochastic) process with a relatively long characteristic time. 
    Although a relationship can be established between the average separation 
    of CTD and water sample on the profile, sample-to-sample variations are 
    large. Thus samples acquired (at a poorly known location) in a zone of 
    appreciable vertical salinity gradient are not suitable for calibration. 
    The close relationship between salinity difference (bottle minus CTD) and 
    salinity gradient for the data from cruise 2003-35 is shown below (see 
    pdf version). 

    We use data acquired where the salinity gradient is less than 0.001 per 
    metre, typically below 450 m in the region of study. Both TC systems of 
    both SBE9 CTDs indicated salinity too low at 1000 m depth. The 
    calibration data are as follows: 

                                   Bottle 
                              TC   minus 
                        CTD  Unit   CTD    Cell Constant 
                        ---  ----  ------  -------------
                         A     1   0.004     1.000 106 
                         A     2   0.001     1.000 026 
                         B     1   0.003     1.000 079 
                         B     2   0.003     1.000 079 


15) INVALID PRIMARY TEMPERATURE, casts 33-50 (except not 48): Salinity 
    computed from primary sensors for these casts showed serious impact of 
    response-time mismatch. The temporal response of the primary temperature 
    sensor appeared to slow significantly partway through cast 33, perhaps 
    because of biological fouling of the thermistor pin. For this reason, 
    data from the secondary temperature-salinity system were used in 
    preference to the primary system for casts 33-47, 49 and 50. 

16) LAG DISTANCE for water samples. Seawater samples were captured on the up-
    cast without stopping. Salinity values computed from simultaneous data 
    from the two independent pumped systems on the SBE 9 differ by amounts 
    proportional to the vertical salinity gradient. The difference is more 
    than 0.100 near the surface despite the close proximity of the TC-duct 
    intakes. These data illustrate the turbulent and poorly mixed character 
    of the wake that the CTD samples on the way up. 

    The objective is to establish the relationship between the samples 
    captured on the up-cast, and the undisturbed profiles of temperature and 
    salinity measured by the CTD on the down-cast. The distribution based on 
    CTDSalinity at the depth of bottle closure is skewed to positive values, 
    since the captured sample is water from a depth greater than the CTD at 
    the time of bottle closure. The optimal value is taken to be that which 
    results in a symmetric distribution of (BottleSalinity - CTDSalinity). 

    For 2003-35, the most symmetrical distribution of salinity difference 
    between bottle and CTD values is obtained when the CTD data are those 
    measured 7 db below the level that the bottle was closed. A summary for 
    data acquired with CTD A is shown in the figure that on the next page 
    (see pdf version). 

17) TWO VERSIONS OF THE PROFILE DATA were created following calibration and 
    calculation of salinity. One is the standard, high sampling rate stream 
    with variables pressure, temperature, conductivity, salinity, 
    fluorescence and transmissivity. The other is intended for further 
    processing of the DO signal voltage, which is not amenable to further 
    editing since a continuous time series is needed. This second file set 
    contains variables pressure, temperature, salinity and DO voltage. See 
    the end of this document for further information. 

18) Examine graphically the top and bottom portions of each profile. Delete 
    scans at either end of the profile that are unrepresentative, because the 
    data are contaminated by ship-generated mixing, or by wake engulfment 
    when the rosette slows down at the bottom of the cast. The problem of 
    wake engulfment is frequently characteristic of the entire profile when 
    the ship heaves in a sea. Each time the ship rises, the descent of the 
    rosette-CTD slows, allowing the wake to catch up. It is customary to edit 
    CTD profiles for this effect by removing scans that were acquired at slow 
    descent rate. 

    This is not appropriate. Engulfment occurs as the probe decelerates, and 
    escape from the wake is not achieved until the probe has fallen some 
    distance at increased speed. Deletions guided by fall speed eliminate 
    some good data early in the heave, and leave some bad data later on. 

    The figure below illustrates the problem. In the absence of automated 
    methods of automated methods of removing wake-contaminated data from the 
    profile, those profiles most influenced by waves (1-3, 14-31) were 
    inspsubjectively and temperature and salinity values were edited by 
    interpolation over wake-influenced intervals. Other channels were left 
    untouched. 

19) File size is reduced by removing spurious channels (unused temperature 
    and conductivity channels, altimeter data and flags). 

20) File size is reduced 5-fold by computing averages of base variables 
    (pressure, temperature, salinity, fluorescence, transmissivity) over 0.2-
    db increments. 

21) Calculate the derived quantities potential temperature (Theta0), depth 
    and gamma (Gamma0) using bin-averaged values of the profile data. 

22) Salinity of water samples: Intrinsic to the above analysis is the 
    assumption that all discrepancies in salinity between bottles and the CTD 
    result from stochastic variations in the water retained in the bottle 
    through turbulent wake effects. It is also possible that large 
    discrepancies occur because bottle closed at a depth different from that 
    logged. 

    The figure illustrating the correlation of bottle-minus-CTD salinity and 
    salinity gradient implies that discrepancies exceeding 0.100 are unlikely 
    to result from wake effects at depths greater than about 100 m. This 
    figure might be a useful guide in assessing issues related to possible 
    errors in the depth of sample acquisition. 
 

PROCESSING FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN SENSOR (SBE43) 

1) At the processing stage prior to interactive editing of the high-
   resolution profile data (pressure, temperature and conductivity), a file 
   was retained with variables pressure, temperature, salinity and DO 
   voltage. The reason was to retain continuity of sampling for the variables 
   relevant to the slowly responding DO sensor. 

   Plumbing delay in the response of the oxygen sensor relative to pressure, 
   temperature and conductivity was determined in stage 10, using casts 9 and 
   41. A value of 24 scans was adopted for use (about 1 second). 

   Data were corrected for this delay using the IOSSHELL programme SHIFT to 
   advance DO values upward in the file by 24 scans. 

2) The response time of the SBE43 sensor is sensitive to pressure and to 
   temperature. The value at 22.7°C is determined during calibration at Sea-
   Bird Electronics. The following algebraic relation is used to compute the 
   effective time constant during field use. 

                                            (D1·p+D2·T)
                        τ(p,T) = τ  · Do · e
                                  23   


where Do = 2.5826 at 22.7°C, D1 = 1.9640 x 10-4 and D2 = -4.1776 x 10-2 

Laboratory values for the two units used in August 2003 were measured on 4 
April 2003: 

                             s/n 0458 τ23 = 1.42 s
                             s/n 0459 τ23 = 1.23 s

The curves plotted here display the change in these values with pressure 
at constant temperature (0°C), and with depth at observed temperature in 
northern Baffin Bay. In view of our incomplete understanding of the SBE43 
and of the likely absence of fine-scale vertical structure in DO at depth 
below 1000 m, we adopt constant values appropriate for the upper kilometre 
for exploratory processing of these data. 

                           4.0 s for s/n 0458, CTD-B
                           3.5 s for s/n 0459, CTD-A

3) Pressure, temperature and salinity channels are smoothed using an 
   exponential mapped-past filter (IOSSHELL programme EXPFILT) to match the 
   variation in these variables to the slowly responding output voltage of 
   the DO sensor. 

   The DO-sensor output is proportional to the fractional saturation of 
   seawater by dissolved oxygen. The actual concentration of dissolved oxygen 
   is calculated by scaling the voltage to the range (0, 1) and multiplying 
   it by a value for the saturation concentration of oxygen calculated using 
   the slowed-down signals for temperature and salinity. There are small 
   corrections for a sensor offset voltage and for changes in the dimensions 
   of the DO cell with pressure and temperature. 

   Note that if slowed-down signals for temperature and salinity are not used 
   in computing the saturation concentration, then fine structure in 
   temperature and salinity, to which the DO sensor is not sensitive, will be 
   imprinted upon the profile of oxygen concentration. This is not 
   appropriate. 

                DO = Soc(V-Voff)-Tcor(T)·Pcor(p,T) · Oxsat(T,S)

   Here Tcor(T) is a 3rd order polynomial in temperature [Celsius] with 
   coefficients A, B, C. 

                         Pcor(p,T) = ℯE·p/(273.15+T)

   This following step is not recommended until more experience with the DO 
   sensor is gained: 

   It may be practical to re-constitute some of the variance lost to the slow 
   response of the DO sensor. Murphy (Sea-Bird Electronics, 2005) proposes 
   adding a term Tcor(V, T, p) to the signal voltage to restore some high 
   frequency variance that remains small but detectable on the sensor voltage 
   output. The added term uses the temporal derivative of voltage to detect 
   this variance: 
                                                 dV
                         Tcor(V,T,p) = τ (T,p) · --
                                                 dt

4) Murphy recommends smoothing the 24-Hz DO voltage signal with a 0.5-second 
   running average before differentiation. Files are subsequently thinned to 
   a sampling rate of 2 Hz (1 sample per half second). 

5) Subsequent processing and calibration of the DO voltage is pending at this 
   time (18 May 2005). 





CTD  DATA PROCESSING:  OXYGEN
Russell Desiderio
Oregon State University
April 2010


CTD data consisting of casts numbered from 1 to 81 were acquired using two 
Sea-Bird SBE911+ systems, including two SBE43 Clark-type oxygen sensors. 
Humfrey Melling used standard CTD data processing techniques (Melling’s data 
processing report is also available at this CCHDO site) to create 24 Hz data 
files of pressure, temperature, salinity, and raw oxygen sensor voltage. Note 
that we differed in opinion with Melling as to how to process the oxygen 
data; our preferred approach is described below. Cast 1 data are not useful 
due to shipboard problems, and there are no data for casts 25 and 27. For 
instrumentation details, consult the cruise report.

The oxygen sensor data were processed using the Sea-Bird SBE43 Owens-Millard 
calibration equation:
        
              ⎛                        ∂V43 ⎞              Tcor·T    Pcor·P
  [O2] = Soc* ⎜ V43 + Voffset + τ(P,T)*-----⎟ *Oxsat(T,S)*e       * e
              ⎝                         ∂t  ⎠

where:

    [O2] is the concentration of oxygen, in the same units as Oxsat;
    [V-1] is the linear scaling calibration coefficient;
    V43 [V] is the oxygen sensor voltage;
    Voffset [V] is the sensor voltage at zero oxygen, a calibration 
      coefficient;
    τ [s] is the sensor time constant, dependent on pressure and temperature;
    ∂V43/∂t [V/s] is the smoothed time derivative of the smoothed voltage 
      signal;
    Oxsat(T,S) is the oxygen saturation concentration as parameterized by 
      Weiss (1970);
    Tcor [C-1] is the temperature correction coefficient;
    Pcor [db-1] is the pressure correction coefficient.

The (τ * ∂V/∂t) term mathematically diminishes signal broadening effects 
resulting from the time response of the sensor characterized by the 1/e time 
constant τ. For the ideal case of a single exponential time response and a 
signal with no noise, inclusion of this term would exactly cancel the 
broadening. The dependence of τ on temperature [°C] and pressure [db] was 
given by Sea-Bird (2006) as: 

                                          D1*P   D2*T
                     τ(P,T) = τ   * D  * e    * e
                               RT    0

where τRT is the sensor time constant measured at room temperature (22.7°C), 
D0 = 2.5826, D1 = 1.964*10-4, and D2 = -4.1776*10-2.

The oxygen saturation algorithm of Garcia and Gordon (1992) provides better 
estimates of oxygen saturation concentrations at temperatures near freezing 
than does that of Weiss (1970), because they used more accurate experimental 
data and an improved functional form for the fitting equation. However, the 
Sea-Bird calibrations available to us were based on the Weiss algorithm. 
Because Oxsat(W) = 0.99903 * Oxsat(GG) at the lowest temperature calibration 
points (5°C; only two temperature values were used in the factory 
calibrations, the other at 25°C), we modified the Owens-Millard equation 
above by replacing Oxsat(W) with  0.99903 * Oxsat(GG). This substitution 
obviously does not change the numerical values calculated for [O2] at 5°C. 
The factor 0.99903 can be interpreted as an adjustment to the original Soc 
value determined using Oxsat(W), resulting in an effective Soc value 0.1% 
smaller than the original.   

The pre-cruise SBE calibration coefficients for the two oxygen sensors were 
used (see Appendix) with the exception of τRT in the upper water column, 
which was determined empirically from the cruise data as described below. No 
post-cruise calibrations were possible because the oxygen sensor membranes 
were damaged after cruise completion and before the sensors were received by 
Sea-Bird at their factory. 

The major problem associated with processing oxygen Clark-type sensor data is 
that the sensor time response (seconds for the SBE43) is much slower than 
those of our temperature and conductivity sensors (60 milliseconds), 
resulting in oxygen fractional saturation signals “smeared” in time relative 
to those of temperature and salinity. The standard processing approach at the 
time of this cruise (using the Owens-Millard equation with τ = 0) would have 
been to crudely line up the oxygen record to those of temperature, salinity, 
and pressure by advancing the oxygen sensor data stream in time. Such 
empirical time advances would be larger than warranted by the physical flow 
lag from the TC sensors to the oxygen sensor by about the magnitude of the 
oxygen sensor time constant. However, this procedure can produce artifactual 
oxygen structure: the Oxsat(T,S) term in the calibration equation will 
reflect any high resolution structure present in the temperature and salinity 
records, whereas the fractional saturation values proportional to the sensor 
voltages will be unable to respond to the fine scale in situ oxygen 
fractional saturation structure that, if present, may or may not be 
correlated with the temperature and salinity structure. 

One solution would be to smooth temperature and salinity data used in the 
calculation of Oxsat, before it is used in the calibration equation to 
determine oxygen concentrations. However, in this approach, the calculated 
oxygen concentration data are artifactually broadened in certain 
circumstances (for example when there are step gradients in oxygen 
concentration, temperature, and salinity, but constant oxygen fractional 
saturation). The method we prefer uses the (τ * ∂V/∂t) term to sharpen the 
oxygen sensor response in an attempt to match it to those of the temperature 
and conductivity sensors. Data acquired within the top of the water column in 
regions of steep temperature gradients appeared to require different values 
for the processing variables (τ, flow advance) than did data acquired deeper 
in the water column later in the casts. Possible explanations for this 
empirical observation are discussed after the presentation of the following 
four figures characterizing it.

A value of 1 second for the oxygen flow advance was determined by visually 
comparing the oxygen sensor voltage record relative to the temperature record 
in regions of steep gradients (casts 9 and 41). Figure 1 shows temperature 
(blue), oxygen sensor voltage (green) advanced by 1 second, and calculated 
oxygen signal for cast 41, with τRT set equal to that of this sensor’s 
factory-determined calibration coefficient, 1.2 seconds (solid red trace).  
For comparison, the calculated oxygen signal for τRT = 0 at this flow advance 
is also shown (dashed red trace). Both traces show artifacts analogous to 
salinity spikes at the locations of steep temperature gradients at about 21 
and 25 db. Such features arise because of the mismatch in sensor time 
constants and/or synchronization. 

Processing parameters for the upper part of the water column (flow advance = 
0.667 sec, τRT = 0.75 sec) were chosen to be those that minimized the sizes 
of the spike artifacts (blue trace, Figure 2). Also shown is the best result 
for τRT = 0 (flow advance = 1.75 seconds, green trace); at larger flow 
advances, the magnitude of the positive spike decreases at the expense of the 
appearance of a negative spike at the beginning of the feature at 24 db (red 
trace).   

Deeper in the water column, however, a different set of processing parameters 
was required to process the data. Many casts exhibited fine scale temperature 
structure which was anti-correlated with the oxygen sensor voltage record. 
Figure 3 shows such a case, also occurring in cast 41, in which the 
processing parameters which gave good results in the upper part of this cast 
failed to line up the calculated oxygen features with temperature. The 
advanced sensor voltage record is shown in green; processing by inclusion of 
the τ * ∂V/∂t term results in the fractional saturation trace shown in red, 
sharpening (and effectively further advancing) the flow-advanced sensor 
voltage. Fractional saturation is calculated as [O2]/Oxsat, and so is only 
insignificantly  influenced by temperature through the Tcor correction term. 
Since oxygen solubility is inversely correlated with temperature, Oxsat(T,S) 
(in blue) and fractional saturation are positively correlated in this region. 
The Oxsat and fractional saturation features at 225 db and 245 db do not line 
up.

A better fit to subsurface data was obtained by using a flow advance of 2.5 
seconds while retaining the factory calibration value for τRT (red trace, 
Figure 4). On the other hand, using increasingly larger values for τRT 
instead of increasing the flow advance did not shift the calculated 
fractional saturation record far enough to earlier times, so that the fine 
scale features would not coincide. In addition, larger values for τRT 
resulted in a distorted fractional saturation record.

Each cast was processed in three parts. At and above the thermocline, (0.667, 
0.75) was used, as in Figure 2. Twenty db below the thermocline, (2.5, 1.2) 
or (2.5, 1.4) was used (Figure 4), depending on which oxygen sensor was 
employed. At intermediate pressures, oxygen values were determined by using a 
progressively weighted average to splice together records calculated using 
each set of parameters.

We can advance two possible explanations for the disparate time response 
characteristics of the sensor signal during each cast. First, the oxygen 
sensors may not have been at thermal equilibrium, thereby leading to the 
observed longer effective τ values as the internal temperature of the sensor 
dropped. Second, it may be that the time responses of these oxygen sensors 
are not adequately modeled by a single exponential decay, and in fact may be 
more accurately modeled as a double exponential decay. In the latter case, 
inclusion of the τ * ∂V/∂t term in the calibration equation would not 
identically cancel the effects of broadening on the sensor voltage signal.

Arithmetically, the short empirically determined τRT value used at the top of 
the water column is effective because as the multiplier to ∂V/∂t, it adjusts 
the sharpening of the sensor voltage response to match the sharpness of the 
steep temperature gradient so that spiking does not occur. Below the 
thermocline, there may be a longer time component to the sensor response 
which cannot be fully corrected using any value of τRT because of the non-
ideal (not single exponential) time response of the oxygen sensor. However, 
this hypothesized longer time response would be empirically compensated for 
in our data with an increased flow advance to 2.5 seconds.

Winkler titrations of water samples collected by the CTD rosette system (see 
meta data for bottle samples for analytical details) were used to calibrate 
the oxygen sensor data. Only values acquired from water samples in regions of 
slowly varying oxygen concentration were used, which limited the samples to 
those collected below 300 meters (5 outliers were discarded). When the 
deviations of the sensor data from the bottle data were plotted against time, 
4 distinct groups of points resulted (Figure 5, blue points). 

The first two groups of data were merged because their means were not 
significantly different. The mean of the values in the merged group was used 
to determine the Winkler calibration offset for casts acquired before cruise 
day 5.8. For the same reason, the Winkler calibration offset used for casts 
acquired after cruise day 8.2 was determined from the mean of the values 
comprising the last two groups of data. (Note that the difference in 
calibration offsets is not due to the different oxygen sensors used, because 
the sensors were switched on about cruise day 11). Casts acquired between 
days 5.8 and 8.2, depicted by the red crosses in Figure 5, fell into three 
groups in time. The 3 earlier casts, before day 6, were assigned the same 
calibration offset as determined for the casts in the first two groups of 
data; the last 2 casts, after day 8, were assigned the same offset as 
determined for the last two groups of data; and the calibration offset 
for the middle casts was assigned as the mean of these two values. The 
calibration statistics are presented below in Table 1. The absolute values of 
the mean deviations were added as offsets to the sensor data to correct them 
to the Winkler determinations.

Table 1:  Winkler calibration statistics

               cruise day:           d<6    6<d<8    d>8
               cast number:          c≤28  29≤c≤38   c≥39
               |mean|  [mmole/m^3]:  4.8   ((6.2))   7.6
               stdev   [mmole/m^3]:  1.2      -      0.9
               number of bottles:    51       -      21

Casts were truncated at the top and bottom of the water column with the 
intent to capture data occurring only during the monotonically increasing 
part of the pressure records (the latter minimally smoothed to eliminate bit 
noise). Some casts (2, 14, 17-24, 26, and 28) did exhibit significant 
pressure reversals after the start of the CTD’s descent; these data were 
retained, processed, and noted in the corresponding data files as a notation 
at the #pressure reversals: header line. The data were then binned into 1 db 
bins, derived quantities calculated, and data files created in accordance 
with CCHDO formats. The data files are named hly031-00??-oxy_ct1.csv, where 
?? = cast number. The column headings denoting the variables and their units 
are:

    CTDPRS DBAR pressure
    CTDDEP METERS depth
    CTDTMP ITS-90 temperature
    CTDPOTTMP ITS-90 potential temperature
    CTDSAL PSS-78 salinity
    CTDSIGTH KG/M^3 sigma-theta
    CTDOXYV VOLTS  unprocessed oxygen sensor voltage
    CTDOXY MMOLE/M^3 oxygen concentration
    CTDOXPCSAT PERCENT percent oxygen saturation
    CTDOXSAT MMOLE/M^3 oxygen saturation (Garcia-Gordon) 
    CTDNOBS NUMBER number of points per bin

The unprocessed oxygen sensor voltage records are included as a diagnostic 
for the user, and in case the user would want to process the raw sensor data 
in a different manner.



KENNEDY CHANNEL MOORINGS


DEPLOYMENT OF THE FRESHWATER FLUX ARRAY
Humfrey Melling
Institute of Ocean Sciences/DFO
Sidney BC Canada


Design of the Array

The freshwater flux array is a “picket fence” designed to measure ocean 
current, temperature and salinity over the full depth of the channel, and ice 
drift and thickness at the surface. The picket-fence analogy refers to the 
close (5 km) spacing of moorings. This spacing is comparable to the internal 
Rossby radius in Nares Strait and to the topographic length scale at the 
channel walls. We anticipate that the time series recorded by instruments at 
this spacing will be coherent. If this is so, then fluxes may be calculated 
by integration of salinity and current values interpolated between moorings.

The “picket fence” was established at the southern end of Kennedy Channel, 
about 200 km north of the sill separating waters of the Arctic Ocean from 
those of Baffin Bay. The channel here is only 38 km wide, and the depth 
everywhere is less than 400 m. At this section, we require only 8 moorings of 
each type to measure the flow on a 5-km scale. The depth of the section is 
within the anticipated year-round effective range of operation of the 75-kHz 
acoustic Doppler current profilers selected for this project. 

The location of the picket fence in Nares Strait is marked on the adjacent 
map by the dense line of symbols touching the Greenland coast at Cape 
Jefferson. The geometry and layout of the section is illustrated below.


Mooring Description

Three types of moorings have been used on the section. These support 75-kHz 
ADCPs, temperature-salinity recorders and ice-profiling sonar, respectively. 
There are 8 moorings for temperature-salinity measurement on the section, 
interleaved with 7 ADCP moorings to measure current and ice drift. An eighth 
ADCP mooring has been positioned on the Ellesmere side, 30-km north of main 
array, to assist in identifying disturbances that propagate along the 
channel. Two additional moorings on the main section carry ice-profiling 
sonar for measuring the thickness of drifting ice. 

Five moorings in a pressure-measuring array, described elsewhere in this 
report, supplement the moorings of the freshwater-flux array.

Each type of mooring has unique features designed to cope with the challenges 
of this high latitude environment – hazard from drifting ice in the upper 30 
m of the water column, hazard from icebergs in the upper 200 m, and the 
absence of a stable geomagnetic reference for current direction. 

The ADCP moorings avoid ice by rising less than 3 m above the seafloor in 
depths of 150-380 m. For the same reason, the ice-profiling sonar have been 
positioned at 100-m depth, the maximum practical for effective performance of 
this instrument. The floatation supporting the temperature-salinity moorings, 
which rise to within 30 m of the surface, is distributed in long strings of 
small plastic floats. This floatation is less prone to snagging in the 
crevices of drifting ice and icebergs. The moorings are also “soft” and thus 
easily depressed by drifting ice. The changing depth of temperature-salinity 
recorders can be determined from the records of pressure recorded in two 
SBE37s on each mooring, one at a nominal depth of 30 m and the second at the 
30-inch steel float at 200-m nominal depth.

The ADCP moorings are torsionally rigid, so that each instrument is held in a 
fixed (unknown) orientation throughout its deployment. The orientation is 
determined through a tidal-stream analysis of the current record, following 
retrieval of data from the instrument at the end of the deployment. Because 
torsional rigidity requires a solid coupling between the instrument and its 
anchor, the anchor weight is distributed in long loops that cushion the 
impact with the seafloor after free-fall from the surface at 3 m/s.

All moorings are designed for recovery and redeployment through sea ice using 
aircraft in springtime. The limitations of aircraft, of human muscle power 
and of access to the ocean through thick sea ice impose tight constraints on 
the weight, bulk and buoyancy of mooring components. 

Representative diagrams of the three mooring types are shown in the figures 
that follow.


Testing

Much of the instrumentation for deployment as the freshwater measuring array 
was purchased new for the project. The primary components, acoustic release-
transponders and Work Horse 75 kHz ADCPs, were tested for full functionality 
in water prior to their use on the moorings.

The Benthos 866A releases can withstand of deep immersion (2000 m). The 
releases were tested in groups of eight within which no receiving channel 
frequency was replicated. The groups were secured to a spare rosette frame 
and lowered to approximately 1000-m depth from the aft A-frame. Functionality 
was tested on a vertical propagation path by lowering the Benthos hydrophone 
over the stern. The Benthos 867A release cannot withstand the pressure at 
1000 m. This model was tested with the rosette to 30-m depth and the 
hydrophone deployed from the RHI at 100-m range from Healy. Sonar operating 
at 3.5 kHz and 12 kHz from Healy was shut down during each trial.

The following checks were performed for each release individually: 1) Enable 
the operation of each release acoustically using the appropriate coded 
transmission; 2) Send the transpond command to test the ranging capability; 
3) Send the release command to test this function.

Tests of the 867A releases on a horizontal propagation proceeded smoothly. 
All releases operated without ambiguity.

There were difficulties in acoustic communication with the 866A releases on 
the vertical propagation path, with the hydrophone at shallow depth (less 
than 5 m). Several releases were inoperable in the acoustic environment of 
the ship. However, these poor performers were later tested with the 867As on 
a horizontal path, where the hydrophone was remote from Healy. In this 
acoustic environment, they passed testing without problem. Marginal operation 
at 1000-m range is apparently related to the high noise level in the vicinity 
of Healy. A lengthened hydrophone cable is recommended for use during mooring 
recoveries from Healy.

Note that the standard Benthos release has been modified for this project to 
operate on a schedule of 1-minute ON followed by 2-minutes OFF. This 
modification was required to extend the release operation to 2-3 years on the 
standard 20 amp-hour  battery. With this modification, enabling the release 
typically requires repeated transmission of the enable command at 30-second 
intervals. Following activation with the enable command, the release is 
operable at all times.


Deployment Method

HLY03-1 was exceptionally lucky with ice conditions in Nares Strait in 2003. 
The predominant wind direction for the entire cruise was southerly, in 
consequence of prevailing low pressure in the Beaufort Sea. This prevailing 
wind has backed ice into eastern Kane Basin, or driven it north all the way 
to the Lincoln Sea - the freshwater is going the 'wrong' way this year! Over 
time, heavy ice has leaked northward from Kane basin into eastern Kennedy 
Channel. However, by the time that this leakage occurred, we had completed al 
the mooring work in this area. As with all Arctic expeditions, luck (good or 
bad) plays a significant role in the level of success.

The 18 moorings of the freshwater flux array were deployed during the 48-hour 
period between the morning of August 4 and that of August 6. The interleaving 
of rosette casts with moorings at the sites of each temperature-salinity 
mooring prolonged the overall duration of the mooring activity. Although some 
pack ice mixed with tabular bergs was encountered within 10 km of Cape 
Jefferson on the eastern side of Kennedy Channel, we found sufficient ice-
free water to stream out the taut-line moorings and use the anchor-last 
approach at every site. The anchor last approach is safer and much quicker 
(0.5 hour versus 3 hours) than the anchor-first method. The ADCP moorings are 
designed for deployment in compact ice and would not have offered challenges 
even had ice conditions been much worse.

It is worthwhile to note that the deployment of moorings would have required 
significantly (perhaps 3 times) more time had we encountered ice conditions 
more typical of Nares Strait in early August. Our efficiency in mooring on 
this trip should not be viewed as an accomplishment generally achievable in 
this area.

Soundings at the mooring sites were derived from the Seabeam bottom-mapping 
sonar, using a profile for sound speed computed from CTD data in central 
Smith Sound. There are considered accurate to within 2 m. The tidal range 
imposes a further uncertainty of 2-3 m.

There is a variety of sources for positioning information on Healy derived 
from the GPS. Antennas are at various locations on the ship, but none are 
located where the mooring anchors were dropped at the transom. Also, it is 
anticipated that anchors will drift up or down channel by distances of 
approximately 50 m during the 3-minute drop to the seabed, in response to 
current and to hydrodynamic resistance from the streamed-out mooring.  The 
positions used in the following tables are derived from the Centurian aft GPS 
receiver/antenna and our referenced to the WGS84 chart datum.


Summary of ADCP Moorings (see pdf)
Summary of Ice-Profiler Moorings (see pdf)
Summary of Temperature-Salinity Moorings (see pdf)





SHALLOW MOORING ARRAY


DEPLOYMENT OF THE PRESSURE-MEASURING ARRAY
Overview by H. Melling


Design of the Array

Flows through Nares Strait will respond to differences in hydrostatic 
pressure between the Lincoln Sea and Baffin Bay. There will also be a 
difference in pressure across the strait associated with geostrophic 
adjustment in the flow. The array of instruments planned for installation in 
Nares Strait in 2003 included eight pressure recorders at sheltered coastal 
locations on both sides of the channel between Hall Basin and Smith Sound. 
These recorders, supplemented by the Canadian, geodetically referenced sea-
level gauge at Alert, will delineate the varying pressure field that forces 
the fluxes of seawater through Nares Strait. 

The average difference in pressure between the Lincoln Sea and Baffin Bay is 
thought to be about 10 mb. The cross-channel pressure difference associated 
with a barotropic flux of 1 Sv is about 5 mb. Since one centimetre of 
seawater exerts a pressure of about one millibar, any settling of the mooring 
into the seabed during deployment must be severely curtailed. 

Mooring Description

Stability against settling is achieved by driving a stainless-steel stake 
into the consolidated sediment several feet beneath the seabed. The stake 
supports the full weight of the instrument package, thereby minimizing 
subsidence caused by insufficient bearing strength or creep of the surface 
sediments and by wave scouring. The mooring is complicated by the need to 
retrieve it through sea ice in the spring of 2005. The short “fat” package on 
its support stake is designed to separate into two packages of modest 
diameter for retrieval through a 10-inch hole in the ice. The pop-up float 
contains a 457 kHz radio beacon for locating the package beneath the ice. 

Deployment Method

The target depth for deployment of the pressure moorings is 20 m, deep enough 
to reduce the risk from drifting sea ice and bergy bits, yet close enough to 
the surface to capture most the surface pressure gradient.

The depth and the design of the mooring dictate installation by divers. The 
design of the mooring requires that the seabed be examined prior to diving 
operations to find the correct conditions of substrate, bottom slope and 
visibility. 

The seabed inspection and diving were conducted from the Healy’s LCVP 
(Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel), Healy 3. This aluminum vessel has a broad 
work deck forward for more than half it length. The gunwale at the bow can be 
lowered to form a ramp equipped with a ladder. The wheelhouse is heated and 
accommodates five without crowding. The LCVP is powered by twin diesel 
engines delivering 600 HP to twin outboard propellers. At times a 6-m (RHIB) 
rigid-hull inflatable boat, Healy 2, was used to ferry personnel and 
equipment between Healy and the LCVP work site. 

Site Selection

The first phase of site selection involved reconnaissance by helicopter of 
sites selected using topographic maps of the area, and hydrographic charts in 
the few coastal locations where soundings were available. The characteristics 
of good sites include shelter from ice scour, presence of fine-grained 
sediment, a range of depth 20-30 m and ease of access by small boat from 
Healy. There is an additional need for assessment of the ease of access by 
ski plane operating from the ice in winter. This phase of selection is 
described elsewhere.

The second phase involved finding a location with the target area with an 
appropriate depth of water for the instrument and an acceptable bottom slope 
for dive safety. In many locations in this rugged area, the latter constraint 
was difficult to meet.

The third phase of selection required visual inspection of the seabed using 
an under-water video camera and physical inspection of sediment retrieved 
using a small van Veen grab. Very rocky bottoms and soft alluvial clays must 
be avoided. The substrate that proved most suitable was a mix of gravel, sand 
and clay.

Mission 1: Foulke Fjord

2 August 2003: Science participants H. Melling and R. Lindsay

USCGC Healy took up a position several miles north-west of Foulke Fjord. The 
seas in Smith Sound were choppy, but the LCVP found sheltered waters within 
the fjord. The site identified from helicopter reconnaissance, behind a 
promontory cutting halfway across the fjord, proved suitable according to the 
criteria for ice protection, for depth, for substrate and for visibility. The 
seabed slope was a little steep, but manageable. 

Following the bivalve retrieval operation, the mooring was deployed by two 
divers in about 20 minutes. Because of the steep slope to the seabed the 
instrument was positioned at 23-m depth, which was slightly more than 
intended. This placed the pressure sensor into its over-range, but still 
above the maximum working depth of 27 m.

Protection from ice at this site was judged to be excellent.

The total operation, including transit, selection, dive preparation and dive 
time took about 3 hours.

Mission 2: Discovery Harbour

7 August 2003: Science participants H. Melling, P. Kalk and L. Narraway

USCGC Healy came within 2 miles of Breakwater Point in order to launch the 
LCVP for Discovery Harbour. Waters were calm. The site identified from 
helicopter reconnaissance, behind Breakwater Spit, was suitable according to 
the criteria for ice protection, depth, for substrate and for visibility.

Protection from ice at this site was judged to be good.

The mooring was deployed by two divers in about 20 minutes. The total 
operation, including transit, selection, dive preparation and dive time took 
about 2 hours.

Mission 3: Off ey Island

10 August 2003: Science participants H. Melling, H. Schaffrin and H. Johnson

USCGC Healy took up a position several miles west of Off ey Island. The seas 
in Hall Basin were choppy, but the LCVP found some shelter behind Off ey 
Island. The site identified from helicopter reconnaissance, behind a hook of 
low land at the eastern end of the island, was suitable according to the 
criteria for substrate and for visibility, but the seabed was too steep for 
safe deployment of the divers. 

A site between the river delta on the Greenland shore opposite Off ey Island 
and Cape Mary Cleverly was then examined. The depth and slope of the seabed 
here were excellent, the protection form ice was acceptable and the seabed 
appeared to be firm clay suitable for deployment. However, when the divers 
descended to complete the installation they discovered that the clay was very 
soft, so that the mooring “spike” could easily be withdrawn from deep in the 
sediment. An extension pipe was lowered, but this was lost in the murk. The 
divers ran out of time and returned to the surface with the “spike’ in hand.

A site beneath a scree slope on the northwest side of the delta was examined. 
Here also was soft clay unsuitable for mooring.

We then moved to a location at the end of the hook of land on the eastern 
side of Off ey Island. The substrate was similar to that at the first 
location, but the seabed sloped more gently. This site was deemed acceptable, 
despite relatively poor protection from ice. The existence of a partial 
barrier of grounded small tabular bergs between the site and Petermann Fjord 
provided some re-assurance that ice as well and landforms could provide 
protection to the mooring.

The mooring was deployed by two divers in about 15 minutes. 

Protection from ice at this site was judged to be fair.

The total operation, including transit, selection, dive preparation and dive 
time took about 6 hours.

Mission 4: Scoresby Bay

12 August 2003: Science participants H. Melling, K, Azetsu-Scott, M. Zweng 
and L. Brown;

USCGC Healy anchored of Cape Malley, about halfway into the bay. Waters were 
flat calm. 

A well-protected site on the southern side of the bay near its head proved 
sufficiently deep, but carpeted with a thick layer of soft alluvial clay. The 
substrate at a second location in the southwest corner of the bay was 
unacceptable for the same reason. A potential site to the south of a rocky 
point of land reaching into the bay from its western end was too shallow. We 
then took soundings along a line running directly east from the point, 
stopping at the 20-m isobath.  At this location, the seabed was a mix of 
clay, coarse gravel and small rocks and apparently suitable for mooring.

Two divers descended, judged that the seabed was acceptable and pounded the 
mooring spike into place. Meanwhile, final checks on the mooring revealed 
non-function of the Benthos acoustic transponding release. The stake was 
buoyed off, and the divers returned to the surface, while a duplicate mooring 
assembly was delivered by the RHIB from Healy (w/ P. Gamble). The mooring was 
completed during a quick second dive. 

Protection from ice at this site was judged to be fair.

The total operation, including transit, selection, dive preparation and dive 
time took about 6 hours.

Mission 5: Alexandra Fjord

3 August 2003: Science participants H. Melling, C. Moser, M. O’Brien and R. 
Macdonald

A first attempt at deployment in Alexandra Fjord was aborted because there 
was too much ice for safe deployment of the LCVP and divers.

13 August 2003: Science participants H. Melling, J. Ressler and P. Ageeakog

Healy reached the mouth of Alexandra Fjord at noon. The LCVP was launched in 
choppy seas at about 13:00 to proceed to the proposed deployment site about 5 
miles to the southwest. During transit, a weather front passed through. Winds 
freshened from 15 to almost 15 knots in less than 30 minutes, whipping up 7-
foot seas. These precluded not only the mooring operation but also a direct 
return to the ship. Healy 3 made its way to the north, seeking shelter close 
behind high land to the north of the fjord until the winds abated. Meanwhile, 
Healy had taken up a position to the north of Healy 3. The LCVP made a safe 
return to the ship at about 17:00.

14 August 2003

Healy returned to the same launch position as yesterday. The wind was south-
easterly at 15 knots. Weather included fog, low stratus cloud and snow 
showers. The tour ship Kapitan Klebnikov was nearby.

Following launch at about 08:00, the LCVP made way to the proposed deployment 
location just north of a rocky islet to the southwest of an un-named island, 
itself west of Skraeling Island. Inspection by underwater camera revealed the 
seabed to be a mix of sand and small stones, capable of providing a stable 
foundation for the pressure-measuring mooring. The depth was 23 m.

After anchoring the LCGP, the deployment proceeded according to plan. After 
the standard 5-foot steel supporting stake had been driven in with relative 
ease, a 30-inch extension was passed down to the divers. The extended stake 
was driven in until the correct length remained projecting above the 
seafloor.. 

The mooring was deployed by two divers in about 25 minutes. There was a wait 
of about an hour until the RHIB arrived to swap out the mooring group and 
replace it with the clam seekers. 

Protection from ice at this site was judged to be good.

The total operation, including transit, selection, dive preparation and dive 
time took about 4 hours.


SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON PRESSURE-GAUGE MOORINGS (see pdf)



SHIP MOUNTED ACOUSTIC DOPPLER CURRENT PROFILING


PRELIMINARY REPORT ON ADCP DATA COLLECTION
Andreas Münchow
Graduate College Of Marine Studies
University Of Delaware
Aug. 15, 2003


1.  Introduction

The USCGC Healy contains two separate and independent hull-mounted acoustic 
Doppler current profiler systems. The systems are a 75 kHz phased array 
(Ocean Surveyor) and a regular 4-beam 153 kHz transducer (BroadBand). Each 
system is mounted in its own well that is filled with anti-freeze solution 
and is separated from the water by an acoustic window. Both systems collected 
data continuously, but only the 75 kHz system was operational. Excessive 
mechanical and/or electromagnetic noise reduced both water tracking range and 
data quality below acceptable levels. Thus I here refer to the 75 KHz system 
only. I will prepare a separate report on the 153 kHz BroadBand system before 
Oct. 2003.


2.  Data Streams

The 75 kHz Ocean Surveyor (OS75) was run via VMDAS under Windows-2000 
Professional and controls input and output data streams. VMDAS receives

OS75 single ping data via serial port COM7 (.ENR file on output),
Gyro heading data via serial port COM7 (.ENR file on output),
P-code (aft) GPS data via serial port COM8 (.N1R file on output), and
Ashtech navigational and attitude data via serial port COM9 (.N2R file on 
output) 

The aft P-code GPS system is distinct from the bridge P-code GPS system. 
VMDAS generates 10 different output files that merge and average data from 
the three input streams in varying ways. A .LOG file contains both direct 
commands send to the OS75 on start-up as well as all subsequent error 
messages. Throughout HLY-03-01 we monitored this file hourly and stopped data 
collection when its size increased to above ~50K rebooting the computer and 
starting a new data collection cycle. The most frequent error messages were 

        [date,time]: NMEA [RPH] communication time out
        [date,time]: NMEA [RPH] Error writing to raw data file

indicating that VMDAS does not receive the Ashtech data. Generally, the 
Ashtech dropped out intermittently for a few minutes every day. A second, 
previously reported “NMEA [RPH] serial buffer full” error message (Flagg, 
pers. Comm.) occurred only rarely after we moved VMDAS into a high-priority 
mode within the Windows-2000-Professinal operating system. Additional data 
recording problems were minimized after we changed the primary data recording 
drive from the network’s F:\ to the local D:\RDI drive and disappeared almost 
completely after we stopped recording to the (secondary) network F:\ drive. 

Curiously, data collection became compromised many days at about 07:45 UTC at 
a time that the ship’s network performed backup services. The problem becomes 
evident when averaged files (.STA and .LTA) are not updated on the local 
drive. A subsequent failure involves the display of navigational data within 
VMDAS. The final and terminal failure is a freeze-up of the computer that 
also stops data collection. We generally stopped data collection and rebooted 
the computer at the first sign of trouble and thus prevented any loss of 
data. We did not observe this failure when we turned off the network as a 
drive (F:\) to which data is written during data collection. A perhaps more 
stable data transfer to the science network is a timed copy of files at 
hourly or daily intervals.

The main ADCP problems appear to be software rather than hardware related. 
Microsoft Windows and its network provide an unstable platform environment 
for data collection. A single, stripped down, stand-alone CPU with dedicated 
serial inputs may remedy many ADCP data collection. The ADCP data collection 
CPU should NOT be used for ANY other processes besides data collection.


3.  Performance

The OS75 performed well during the cruise when run NarrowBand mode using 15-m 
vertical bins and 10-m blanking. All data except those in file os044 were 
collected with this setup. The water profiling range varied from more than 
600-m to less than 200-m depending on the presence of scatters in the water 
column. The OS75 tracked the bottom without any problems down to 900-1100-m. 
Ship speeds below 15 kts had little effect on the systems performance and an 
optimum ship speed in waters may be 12-14 kts. Once the third engine operates 
(irrespectively of speed), however, the additional vibrations degrade the 
OS75 substantially. The same applies to active ice-breaking when little 
useful data are returned at any ship speed.

Overall, the ship provided a very stable platform in all seas encountered, 
but the instrument was not used to its full potential during this expedition. 
Most of the data are severely biased by strong and spatially variable tidal 
currents. Ship speeds in ice-free waters were generally well below 12 kts to 
provide concurrent SeaBeam data that required ship speeds of about 8 kts. The 
spatial-temporal coverage of ADCP profiles was also limited by ship tracks 
that were set without consideration of ADCP operations. As a result it will 
be difficult if not impossible to remove the dominant tidal currents from 
much of the record.

Preliminary processing of the bottom tracking and navigational data indicates 
that the installation is not perfectly level in the vertical, that is, the 
nominal 30 degree vertical beam orientations are not correct. While this is 
not a problem when the ship’s velocity vector is determined via bottom 
tracking, it introduces O(0.1 m/s) errors as a function of the ship’s heading 
if GPS data is used to remove the ship’s motion from the velocity estimates. 
A careful misalignment calibration in the vertical planes is needed to 
accurately determine the deviation of the instrument from its nominal 30 
degree vertical beam angle.


4.  Watchstanders

A dedicated team of watchstanders monitored both ADCPs and SeaBeam data 
collection at all times. These were

      0730-1530 (1030-1830UTC)  Helen Johnson    Lauren Brown
      1530-2330 (1830-0230UTC)  Melissa Zweng    Robert McCarthy
      2330-0730 (0230-1030UTC)  Helga Schaffrin  Elinor Keith

Their tireless efforts ensured an almost gap-free, high-quality ADCP record.


5.  List of files

All file names start with HLY-03-01xxx_yyyyyy.zzz or HLY-03-
01xxxxx_yyyyyy.zzz where xxx or xxxxx are numerical file designation for a 
single configuration that may consist of yyyyyy separate files, and zzz is 
the file extension, e.g., ENR for single-ping raw, N1R for P-code GPS, and 
N2R for Ashtech GPS data. All times are UTC, longitudes are in decimal 
degrees West, and latitudes are in decimal degrees North.

             Start of file                        End of file
             -----------------------------------  -----------------------------------
 xxx    N      Date    Time     Lat.      Long.     Date    Time     Lat.      Long.
----- -----  --------  -----  --------  --------  --------  -----  --------  --------
 001   2614  20030721  12:45  47.56559  52.67932  20030721  17:06  48.35559  52.58321
 002   3856  20030721  17:07  48.35802  52.58322  20030721  21:24  49.49766  52.58313
 003  15731  20030721  21:25  49.50294  52.58316  20030722  17:22  54.15986  53.62524
 004    442  20030722  17:50  54.15951  53.62360  20030722  18:24  54.28205  53.66132
 005  12941  20030722  18:30  54.28270  53.66155  20030723  11:29  58.33990  54.79229
 006   6802  20030723  11:30  58.34304  54.79329  20030723  19:07  60.20654  55.28862
 007   6284  20030723  19:28  60.20838  55.28880  20030724   2:27  62.15104  55.56337
 008   4796  20030724   2:39  62.20158  55.57060  20030724   7:59  63.73242  55.79994
 009   4116  20030724   8:02  63.74517  55.80199  20030724  13:19  65.30084  55.99990
 010   4752  20030724  13:27  65.30181  55.99985  20030724  19:09  66.95110  56.00008

xxxxx   N      Date    Time     Lat.      Long.     Date    Time     Lat.      Long.
----- -----  --------  -----  --------  --------  --------  -----  --------  --------
os001 11214  20030724  19:18  66.97982  55.99990  20030725   7:46  70.51912  57.49936
os002   602  20030725   7:58  70.57709  57.55606  20030725   8:38  70.76336  57.73950
os003  6727  20030725   8:39  70.76565  57.74187  20030725  17:18  72.21100  61.19906
os004  7567  20030725  17:20  72.21254  61.21403  20030726   1:44  72.74875  66.98460
os005 18930  20030726   1:50  72.74903  66.99637  20030726  23:01  72.63833  69.34088
os006  7218  20030726  23:48  72.63299  69.46340  20030727   7:49  72.55171  71.36336
os007    11  20030727   7:49  72.55158  71.36464  20030727   7:50  72.55114  71.36908
os008  3658  20030727   7:54  72.54884  71.39668  20030727  13:53  72.41004  73.17503
os009 13340  20030727  14:00  72.40585  73.20967  20030728   7:52  72.49244  70.97118
os010   135  20030728   7:53  72.49308  70.97494  20030728   8:03  72.50625  71.05600
os011  3332  20030728   8:04  72.50817  71.06759  20030728  12:56  72.67528  73.11263
os012  7633  20030728  16:18  72.68455  73.10138  20030729   4:02  72.75072  72.41721
os013 17515  20030729   4:37  72.74989  72.41205  20030730   4:08  72.60424  70.37753
os014  2991  20030730   4:08  72.60461  70.37484  20030730   7:28  72.91213  68.05395
os015 23918  20030730   7:33  72.91260  68.05034  20030731  10:07  75.00109  66.98710
os016  8116  20030731  12:11  75.00344  66.99065  20030731  22:35  75.90225  67.01836
os017  8562  20030731  22:36  75.90190  67.01925  20030801   9:01  76.07922  70.28147
os018 17566  20030801   9:06  76.07963  70.27975  20030802   7:17  76.95346  72.64362
os019 22879  20030802   7:24  76.97481  72.67781  20030803  10:30  78.33389  74.79550
os020 10961  20030803  11:07  78.33357  74.81812  20030803  23:46  79.48189  71.89564
os021  6390  20030803  23:54  79.49553  71.83634  20030804   7:15  80.51923  68.93549
os022  3718  20030804   7:25  80.53894  68.93442  20030804  11:38  80.40329  67.46243
os023  5708  20030804  11:38  80.40301  67.46324  20030804  18:07  80.55524  68.92558
os024  1583  20030804  18:08  80.55600  68.92338  20030804  19:54  80.55028  68.90497
os025 10011  20030804  19:54  80.55070  68.90504  20030805   7:20  80.54407  68.57036
os026 21281  20030805   7:39  80.54304  68.56230  20030806   7:20  80.76631  67.80462
os027  3191  20030806   8:02  80.76632  67.80314  20030806  11:34  80.76712  67.80251
os028    67  20030806  11:45  80.76910  67.78835  20030806  11:50  80.76968  67.78283
os029 17764  20030806  11:50  80.76970  67.78261  20030807   7:34  81.25810  64.04878
os030  2588  20030807   7:36  81.25834  64.04860  20030807  10:29  81.59307  64.18024
os031  1275  20030807  10:29  81.59463  64.18516  20030807  12:03  81.69113  64.53305
os032 15167  20030807  12:15  81.68852  64.54021  20030808   7:02  82.21631  60.21456
os033 20097  20030808   7:49  82.18775  60.39557  20030809  10:59  81.96040  60.86006
os034 16794  20030809  11:07  81.95517  60.82317  20030810   8:06  81.63189  62.93713
os039 18903  20030810   8:19  81.61712  63.00574  20030811   7:38  81.28267  62.40205
os040 12860  20030811   7:47  81.28349  62.40214  20030812   0:58  81.06546  65.82467
os041  1950  20030812   1:02  81.05815  65.84431  20030812   3:16  80.76300  67.37278
os042  3564  20030812   3:16  80.76276  67.37378  20030812   7:32  80.42391  68.56672
os043  5687  20030812   7:36  80.41897  68.56911  20030812  14:04  79.93959  71.05898
os044 13389  20030812  14:18  79.93946  71.05696  20030813   5:10  79.94334  71.03226
os045 36601  20030813   5:10  79.94368  71.02563  20030814  21:52  78.74312  73.99891
os046  3931  20030814  22:05  78.70112  73.98505  20030815   2:27  78.29403  74.43985
os047  8026  20030815   2:28  78.29281  74.42562  20030815  11:56  76.84819  71.88895*

(*) This file is still recording at the time of this writing (Aug.-15-2003, 11:57 UTC)




BIVALVE RETRIEVAL




COLLECTION OF BIVALVES

OVERVIEW

Bivalves grow by accreting shell material at the outer edge of their shells 
in much the same way as tree rings form at the outer edge of the stem of a 
living tree.  Because the bivalve growth period is sharply delineated by the 
productivity cycle, the shells tend to form annual growth rings throughout 
their lives which may extend from 10 years to over 50 years.  The shells are 
made predominantly of calcium carbonate which contains oxygen atoms drawn 
from carbonate dissolved in seawater.  Since the dissolved carbonate is in 
equilibrium with the seawater, the oxygen isotopic composition of the 
accreting shell reflects the isotopic composition of seawater.  In turn, the 
oxygen isotopic composition of seawater is directly related to the amount of 
freshwater from runoff contained in the seawater.  Together, these facts 
suggest that bivalve shells may provide proxy records of runoff composition 
of seawater for periods from 10 years to more than 50 years.  In addition to 
the direct record of freshwater in the shells, there may also be other 
records contained in shell’s composition especially of elements that replace 
calcium. For example, barium can help to delineate the source of fresh water 
whereas cadmium can give information on the strength of nutrient cycling.

Our objective in this project is to collect sufficient bivalves from Nares 
Strait to evaluate the potential of these to deliver proxy records of ocean 
processes at decadal scales.  From among the collected bivalves, we will 
select the best candidates for detailed analyses.   From selected shells, 
micro samples will be taken in cross section across the growth rings and 
analysed for stable isotopes and elements at OSU.  Records from these 
analyses will be examined for coherence among bivalves and for relationships 
to major forcing of the system (e.g., the Arctic Oscillation or the North 
Atlantic Oscillation).  

APPROACH TO SAMPLING AND SITE SELECTION

In order to produce records of upper ocean processes, we planned to collect 
bivalves residing between 5 and 30 m in the water column, preferably in 
locations away from major local sources (e.g., river estuaries) and in places 
exposed to water flowing through Nares Strait both on the Greenland and 
Ellesmere sides of the channel.    Based on previous discussions with 
biologists who have collected clams in the Arctic, we (Robie Macdonald and 
Mary O’Brien) planned to use divers as our main method of collection with a 
small grab sampler as a supplementary/backup device.  We also developed a 
hydraulic excavator (stinger) following a design used by commercial divers to 
collecting clams. This system included a pump driven by a two stroke engine 
plus about 100m of hosing to reach the seabed.  

Prior to collecting samples, a helicopter survey was conducted along a 10 – 
20 nautical mile stretch of coastline to select sites with high potential for 
bivalves.  Three criteria were kept in mind while conducting this search:  1) 
Sites that were away from intense local runoff; 2) Sites that appeared to 
have appropriate benthic habitat (soft sediments, protected from ice scour or 
grounded ice) and a range of depths appropriate for diving (5-30m) and 3) 
Sites that could be safely sampled by divers operating from a small boat 
(protected from wind, waves or other hazards).  Although up to 10 target 
sites were identified for some locations, time constraints limited us to 
sampling only at the most promising site.  Once a site was selected, we went 
to it in a landing craft (LCBP) and conducted a preliminary, small-scale 
survey using a small submersible camera with colour TV monitor output.  This 
technique allowed us to evaluate the benthic habitat and we were usually able 
to identify clear evidence of the presence of living bivalves through their 
siphons and/or shells.  Because the bivalve sites had much the same 
requirements as the pressure mooring deployment sites (soft sediment, 
protection from ice scour), and because the latter were customarily done 
first, we usually were assured that bivalves could be collected at the site. 
In fact, we always found clams at the sites we had chosen. 


Mission 1: Littelton Island (78 22.2N 072 51.0W), 
2 August 2003

Diving was conducted in a small, protected channel on the outside of 
Littelton Island.  This was the first dive and involved a steep learning 
curve for everyone.  The camera survey suggested that we had a very 
productive site, 20’ deep with a lot of kelp, brittle stars and lots of 
evidence of siphons and clam shells.  Divers entered the water in teams of 
two and were able to work in the water for a period of about 20 minutes.  
Three dives were conducted.  We attempted to use the hydraulic excavator with 
limited success, finding it cumbersome and very noisy on the LCBP thus 
hindering communication with the divers.  Knives were also used to dig the 
mud but the turbid water produced by this endeavor limited success.  In the 
end, we succeeded in collecting a single large bivalve (probably Astarte). 


Mission 2: Bellot Island (81 42.81N 64 55.0W)

Sampling was conducted in a small, protected embayment with a relatively 
gentle bottom slope on the east side of Bellot Island.  The preliminary 
survey by the pressure mooring team had established the presence of clams and 
our towed camera revealed both siphons and shells on a muddy bottom free of 
macro algae.  Here we were able to collect a number of bivalves between the 
depths of 44’ and 90’ using divers and the dredge.  Noteworthy among the 
clams collected at this site were a number of large Hiatellas (4-5cm) but we 
also obtained a few large Astarte-like clams (3-5 cm).  We attempted to use 
the stinger with 100’ of hose at this site but had great difficulty in 
removing kinks in the hose, which had developed during the dive operations at 
Littelton Island, and assessing on deck whether or not water was flowing 
through the hose.  We abandoned its use, resorting once again to hand 
excavation of sediments with the knives.


Mission 3: Off ey Island (81 18.9 N 61 50.0W)

A single, 4cm Hiatella was recovered from a depth of 63’ by the pressure 
mooring group using the small dredge.


Mission 4. Scoresby Bay (79 55.80N 71 7.0W)

The helicopter survey prior to sampling revealed an exposed coastline with 
grounded ice in many places and evidence of scour in the shallows.  The 
western portions of Scoresby Bay were ruled out due to several large 
inflowing rivers.  We selected a relatively steep beach face that appeared to 

be essentially a continuation of the talus slope of a ridge extending along 
the north side of Scoresby just inside Cape M’Clintock.  Once on site with 
the landing craft, we used the dredge and camera to find a location that had 
mud and some hint of clams.  The small colour monitor did not function and 
was replaced by a smaller black and white monitor.  Although the B&W monitor 
was helpful for assuring the presence of bivalves, the colour monitor was 
much better for identifying life on the bottom the sea.  The divers had 
developed a new technique for sampling at this site which included a large 
fabricated scoop and a plastic pail.  Once at the bottom, they sought 
evidence of clams and then filled the bucket with mud to be sorted on the 
landing craft.  This technique recovered some of our best bivalves.  We 
obtained several Astarte-like clams up to 5 cm in breadth and a couple of 
Hiatellas which, although broken, should provide usable sections of shells. 

The first attempt to collect material at this site was abandoned due to high 
winds and waves.  From the charts and helicopter surveys we selected a 
promising site just to the southwest of Cairn Island.  Again using the scoop 
and bucket technique, we recovered material from 22’ and 65’ during two dives 
(paired divers).  The camera survey revealed much evidence of clam shells and 
a mixed sandy/rocky bottom; however, it was difficult to see evidence of 
siphon tubes in the black and white monitor.  We collected numerous Astarte-
like bivalves both by divers and the dredge; however these were mostly very 
small and there was evidence of bottom scour by ice.  The sediments here were 
organic-rich and it seemed to be a very favourable location for benthos with 
the exception of the exposure to ice scour which probably explains the 
abundance of numerous, relatively young clams.  Noteworthy among our 
collections was a large Mya truncata (5cm) collected during the last dive at 
this site. 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


We succeeded in collecting about 10-15 bivalves of possibly 3-4 species that 
are large enough to provide material to evaluate whether climate records are 
stored in shells from this region.  The depth and geographic ranges are 
sufficient to allow us opportunities for comparisons between regions and an 
evaluation of the effects of stratification.  The helicopter surveys were 
very helpful in focusing on promising locations and avoiding shores that were 
too steep, had grounded ice or showed evidence of scour.  In no case did we 
see any evidence of shells from the air, but we routinely found bivalves and 
evidence of bivalves at all sites visited although the population 
distribution appeared to vary from one location to another (e.g., Hiatellas 
were common at some locations whereas Astarte-like clams were present at 
others).  The small camera and colour monitor were indispensable for 
evaluating the bottom before sending divers down to collect material; a 
colour monitor is also essential because it shows siphons and other features 
that are very hard to see in black and white.  The stinger system, while 
showing promise as an excavation tool, could not be brought to effective use 
on this trip. This was mainly due to difficulties in handling the hose which 
kinked easily in the cold temperatures, stopping the flow of water. 
Furthermore, the noise of the 2-stroke pump on the deck severely hampered 
communication both on the launch and between the launch and divers.  
Techniques and tools developed by the divers themselves much improved our 
collection efficiencies and we found clams in the mud returned to the surface 
that would have been very hard to spot by the divers at the bottom.  Diving 
operations included paired divers at difficult sites (currents, waves, macro 
algae) and single divers with protected sites/muddy bottoms.  A dressed-out 
diver was on standby during all dives and we usually had 4-6 divers on board 
during the operations.  Each dive lasted about 20 minutes by which time the 
divers were feeling the effects of the cold.  Between 2 and 3 dives were 
conducted at each site and the total time taken for doing this work was 
between 4 and 7 hours, ship to ship.


Table 1.  Brief summary of bivalve collections

                                                                     Total 
                                                            Depths   Number 
   Date        Site Name       Lat N      Long W      Stn   (ft)    of clams
----------  ----------------  ----------  ----------  ---   ------  --------
08/02/2003  Littelton Island  78° 22.2′   072° 51.0′   CL1    66        1
08/07/2003  Bellot Island     81° 42.81′  064° 55.0′   CL2   44-76     56
08/10/2003  Off ey Island     81° 17.91′  061° 43.93′  CL3   32-63      1
08/12/2003  Scoresby Bay      79° 55.8′   071°  7.0′   CL4    32       14
08/14/2003  Alexandra Fjord,  78° 54.35′  075° 47.16′  CL5   22-73     91
            Cairn Island 




CORING


PISTON CORING AND GRAVITY CORING
By J. Chris Moser

INTRODUCTION

Four piston cores were taken in the Western margin of Baffin Bay between 900 
and 1400 meters water depth.  Two gravity cores were taken in the 800 meter 
deep channel in the Hall Basin.  

A Healy 03-1 Coring Data Summary follows:

HLY0301-01PC (C1)  072  44.993’ N  072  24.736’ W  976 cms   905  meters depth
HLY0301-02PC (C2)  072  39.916’ N  071  59.762’ W  500 cms  1041  meters depth
HLY0301-03PC (C3)  072  34.993’ N  071  25.462’ W  188 cms  1174  meters depth
HLY0301-04PC (C4)  072  31.212’ N  071  00.174’ W  649 cms  1400  meters depth
HLY0301-05GC       081  37.286’ N  063  15.467’ W  372 cms   797  meters depth
HLY0301-06GC       081  37.321’ N  063  13.860’ W    1 cm    805  meters depth
                        (Core Catcher)

Coring personnel included two coring technicians from Oregon State 
University, Pete Kalk and Chris Moser,  and two coring technicians from the 
University of Rhode Island, Chip Heil and Jason Ressler.  Welcome assistance 
was also provided by Pauloosie Akeeagok, a Nunavut cruise participant from 
Grise Fiord, Ellesmere Island, Canada.  

We would also like to thank Captain Oliver and the crew of the USCGC Healy 
for their expert assistance and ship handling abilities during all phases of 
our coring program; especially holding station with the stern into the seas 
during 30 knot winds when the bow thruster was down and the timely repair of 
the starboard 04 deck crane.  We thank the entire deck crew who operated the 
starboard cranes at all hours of the day and night.  

And lastly, no coring operations could have been possible without the expert, 
capable assistance of the Healy Marine Science Technicians under the 
direction of Senior MST Glen Hendrickson --- MST Bridget Cullers, MST Suzanne 
Scriven, MST Josh Robinson and MST Daniel Ganoa.  

We would also like to thank Dr. Kelly Falkner, Chief Scientist of this CATS 
cruise, for the coring opportunity of a lifetime and Dr. Kate Moran, 
University of Rhode Island, for her background seismic data and initial 
proposed locations for piston cores C1, C2, C3 and C4.


PISTON CORING

Initial Bathymetric SeaBeam 2000  and  Bathy2000  3.5KHz Sub-bottom Survey of 
Coring Sites in Western Baffin Bay and Data Interpretation


July 26, 2003, Saturday  and  Sunday, July 27, 2003

The Healy steamed NW and upslope in western Baffin Bay toward proposed core 
locations.  Coring technicians watched 3.5KHz records from SeaBeam 2000 and 
Knudsen Bathy systems alternately as we traversed Hydro Stations 4, 5 and 6 
that ran between Core sites C3 and C4.  We decided that the SeaBeam 2000 
record was easier to read and interpret with Bathy2000W software for archived 
data.  

We continued monitoring 3.5KHz records until 0430 Hours and plotted waypoints 
for a SeaBeam 2000 3.5KHz and SeaBeam survey through the four proposed Core 
Sites C4, C3, C2 and C1 from SE to NW.  We decided to steam a survey at ten 
knots that would initially cover all four coring sites and then run parallel 
swaths on both the downslope and upslope sides of that initial line.   These 
three parallel swaths would cover about a one hundred nautical mile trackline 
trending thirty nautical miles NW to SE.

July 28, 2003, Monday

The Healy Bridge agreed to navigate using the SeaBeam display to overlap the 
three parallel SeaBeam trackline swaths which was very helpful.  This extra 
effort by the Healy crew and Roger Davis, the onboard SeaBeam guru, produced 
a beautifully complete bathymetric map of the entire coring area.  The ship 
initiated steaming NW on Line 1 for the 3.5KHz / SeaBeam Survey at 0035hrs 
GMT.  We turned and began the SW Line 2 of the survey at 0406hrs GMT 
downslope of that initial line and finished Line 3 of the Coring Survey at 
1045hrs GMT steaming NW .  

The preliminary SeaBeam bathymetry data provided by Roger Davis revealed a 
broad flat, featureless shelf sloping gently from 850 meters depth in the NW 
near site C1 to 1500 meters depth near site C4 at the SE end of our coring 
transect.

The coring technicians then reviewed the archived 3.5KHz Bathy2000 data with 
Bathy2000W software to view a stitched-together continuous depth profile of 
the sub-bottom.  The 3.5KHz sub-bottom record showed a nearly acoustically 
transparent surface layer 5 – 8 meters thick underlain by a continuous 
denser, laminar layer that varied in thickness throughout the survey area.  
Below these two fairly transparent layers was a strong, black 3 meter thick 
acoustic horizon that varied in depth from 12 – 20 meters below the seafloor.  
In many places, the 3.5KHz record showed multiple laminar acoustic reflectors 
up to 40 meters below the seafloor.  

Based upon this featureless preliminary SeaBeam data and the laminar 3.5KHz 
Bathy2000 sub-bottom data, the coring technicians decided to retain the 
proposed coring sites C1, C2, C3 and C4 as acceptable piston coring 
locations.  

Previous Huntec sub-bottom seismic reflection data provided by Dr. Kate Moran 
from the Buchan Gulf to the south of our coring area also showed the presence 
of an upper transparent Tiniktartuq Mud underlain by a thicker Davis Strait 
Silt.  Interspersed within the thick seismic section were overlapping, hard 
black acoustic reflectors that pinched out downslope, identified as glacial 
till tongues and suggestive of  previous glacial deposition of tills and 
gravels in these areas and perhaps further north in our coring area as well.

After considering all the available data, the onboard Healy starboard piston 
core was rigged for a forty-foot length as a precaution against these 
possible layers of glacial till gravels and glacial erratics.


 

July 29, 2003   Tuesday

The starboard piston core was already rigged for forty feet.  Began coring 
operations at 0430hrs GMT at Site C1 in 905 meters of water.  


Core C1                                                  
HLY0301-01PC (C1)  072  44.993’ N  072  24.736’ W  976 cms  905 meters depth
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Sec 1   59cms        Sec 2  150cms        Sec 3  150cms        Sec 4  150cms 
Sec 5  150cms        Sec 6  150cms        Sec 7   76cms        Sec 8   90cms 


Core C1 tripped at 0456hrs GMT and was recovered at 0550hrs GMT.  Pullout 
tension registered 12,960 lbs.  01PC (C1) recovered eight sections totaling 
976 cms of sticky brown mud / clayey silt.  Very sticky mud and gravels stuck 
to the outside of the core barrel for approximately the lower 30 feet.  The 
core cutter was dented and the core apparently bottomed out into glacial 
tills and gravels.  Saved and labeled a sample of the gravels from the 
outside of the core barrel.  During sectioning, there was a 126 cm void in 
the core between Sections 7 and 8 at the bottom of core.   We also noted a 
rock in the core at the cut between Sections 4 and 5.  

We again rigged the starboard piston core for a forty-foot long core.

The ship moved to Site C2 and began coring at 0929hrs GMT in 1041 meters of 
water.  


Core C2                                                  
HLY0301-02PC (C2)  072  39.916’ N  071  59.762’ W  500 cms  1041 meters depth
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Sec 1  50cms        Sec 2  150cms        Sec 3  150cms        Sec 4  150cms 


Core C2 tripped at 0958hrs GMT and was recovered at 1130hrs GMT.  Pullout 
tension registered 18,890 lbs.  02PC (C2)  recovered four sections totaling 
500cms of sticky brown mud / clayey silt.  Very sticky mud/silt and gravels 
stuck to the outside of the core barrel for approximately the lower 20 feet.  
The core cutter was dented and the core apparently bottomed out into glacial 
tills and gravels.  Saved and labeled a sample of the gravels from the 
outside of the core barrel.  During sectioning, a well-rounded , stream worn 
gravel about 8cms in diameter was noted at the top of  Section 3 that nearly 
filled the core liner. There were no obvious voids in the core during 
sectioning.  

We rigged the starboard piston core for a forty foot long core and then ate 
lunch.

The Healy set up at Site C3 and began coring at 1215hrs in 1180 meters of water.  


Core C3        
HLY0301-03PC (C3)  072  34.993’ N  071  25.462’ W  188 cms  1174 meters depth
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Sec 1  38cms        Sec 2  150cms  


Core C3 tripped at 1550hrs GMT and was recovered around 1630hrs GMT.  Pullout 
tension registered 12,673 lbs.  03PC (C3) recovered only two sections 
totaling 188cms of sticky brown mud / clayey silt.  Very sticky mud and 
gravels stuck to the outside of only the lower 10-foot section of core 
barrel.  Again the core cutter was dented and the core apparently bottomed 
out into glacial tills and gravels.  Saved and labeled a sample of the 
gravels from the outside of the core barrel.  There were no obvious voids in 
the core during sectioning.  

The coring group was getting quite tired by now at 1630hrs.  We stumbled to 
bed to sleep for three hours until 1930hrs when we ate set-aside dinners.  


July  30,  2003   Wednesday

While the Healy steamed slowly through the night, we rigged the last piston 
core for Site C4 and began coring at 0026hrs GMT in 1400 meters of water.  

Core C4          
HLY0301-04PC (C4)  072  31.212’ N  071  00.174’ W  649 cms  1400 meters depth 
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Sec 1   40cms        Sec 2  152cms        Sec 3  151cms        Sec 4  151cms 
Sec 5  155cms    


Core C4 tripped at 0107hrs GMT and was recovered around 0150hrs GMT.  04PC 
(C4) recovered five sections totaling 649 cms of stiff brown mud / clayey 
silt.  Once again, very sticky mud/clayey silt and gravels stuck to the 
outside of the core barrel for about the lower 20 feet .  Again the core 
cutter was dented and the core apparently bottomed out into glacial tills and 
gravels.  Saved and labeled a sample of the gravels from the outside of the 
core barrel.  There were no obvious voids in the core during sectioning.  

Broke down the piston coring equipment until 0730hrs GMT. 


GRAVITY CORING

Initial Bathymetric SeaBeam 2000 and Bathy2000 3.5KHz Sub-bottom Survey of 
Coring Sites in the deepest section of Hall Basin and Data Interpretation


August 8, 2003  Friday

The Healy Bridge again agreed to navigate using the SeaBeam display to 
overlap SeaBeam trackline swaths which was very helpful.  The ship initiated 
steaming SW on Line 1 for the 3.5KHz / SeaBeam Survey at 1800hrs GMT.  After 
four hours of bathymetric data we finally found the 800 meter depth channel 
within the Hall Basin that had been suggested by earlier hydrographic 
sounding charts and finished the survey at 2350hrs GMT.  The preliminary 
SeaBeam bathymetry data provided by Roger Davis revealed a broad U-shaped 
channel just over 800 meters deep trending NE – SW through the western 
portion of the Hall Basin.  

The coring technicians then reviewed the archived 3.5KHz Bathy2000 data with 
Bathy2000W software to view the continuous depth profile of the sub-bottom.  
The 3.5KHz sub-bottom record within the deep Hall Basin Channel showed a 
horizontal, transparent surface layer 5 – 10 meters thick underlain by 
multiple laminar acoustic reflectors up to 25 meters thick.  

Based upon this flat channel bathymetry and the horizontal bedding in the 
sub-bottom records, the coring technicians decided to gravity core the 
thalweg of the channel below 800 meters depth.


GRAVITY CORING OPERATIONS

August 11, 2003   Monday

The coring technicians had earlier rigged a 12-foot long gravity core on the 
starboard side.  We placed a cloth sock in the core catcher to help retain 
any sandy sediments.  At 1400hrs GMT the Healy deck crew and MSTs transferred 
the gravity core from the 02 Deck to the starboard A-frame and trawl wire 
using the 04 Deck Crane. 

We began gravity coring for HLY0301-05GC in the Hall Basin Area at 1442hrs 
GMT in 797 meters water depth.  


Core 05GC          
HLY0301-05GC  081  37.286’ N  063  15.467’ W  372 cms  797 meters depth
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Sec 1   10cms        Sec 2  60cms        Sec 3  151cms        Sec 4  151cms 


We rigged the 12KHz pinger 50 meters above the core.  Core 05GC was lowered 
at 60 m/min and stopped 100 meters above the bottom for several minutes to 
settle out.  The core was then lowered into the bottom at 60 meters/minute 
wire speed.  Pullout tension registered 2,790 lbs.  After pullout the core 
was hauled in at 60 m/min.  The entire outside of the twelve-foot long core 
barrel was smeared in mud.  Core 05GC recovered 372 cms of brown clayey silt 
with the core penetration stopped only by the core weight.  The core slightly 
over-penetrated and we recovered the top 10cm (Section 1) by carefully prying 
the core mud from the inside of the metal stub at the bottom of the core 
weight and preserving it stratigraphically intact within two red core end 
caps.  There were no obvious voids in the core during sectioning.  There were 
no gravels apparent in the mud from the outside of the core barrel.

It should be noted that HLY0301-05GC gravity core represents the highest 
latitude core ever taken by the Oregon State University NORCOR group and we 
appreciate the opportunity.

We stayed on station and again rigged the gravity core for another longer ~ 
20 foot core.  As we were preparing to transfer the gravity core, the 04 Deck 
level crane developed a hydraulic leak.   After only two hours, the Healy 
deck crew had repaired the blown O-ring seal, and we were ready to deploy.

At 1942hrs GMT we took gravity core HLY0301-06GC near the same site but with 
a longer 20 foot PVC barrel.  


Core 06GC        
HLY0301-06GC  081  37.321’ N  063  13.860’ W  1  cm  805 meters depth
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
                                                     (Core Catcher)
Sec  1  1cm (Core Catcher Sample)


We again rigged the core catcher with a cloth sock for possible sandy 
sediments.  The 12KHz pinger was placed 50 meters above the core, and we 
lowered the core to within 150 meters of the bottom and stopped several 
minutes to let the line settle out.  This time we lowered the core into the 
bottom at 70 m/min wire speed and registered a good pullout tension of 
2,976lbs.  During core recovery at 480 meters of wire out, it was noticed 
that the winch had a bad wrap and wire was let back out to correct the bad 
wrap.  Recovered the core at 60m/min wire speed.  PVC core barrel had ~15 
feet of mud smear on the outside and clear water running out of the core 
catcher upon recovery.  Core catcher fingers were not inverted and cloth sock 
was still visible at recovery.  There was no mud in the core cutter, but the 
core catcher and cloth sock were intact.  After opening, the core only had a 
very small amount of mud caught in the cloth sock above the core catcher.  At 
least half (ten feet) of the inner wall of the core pipe was smeared with mud 
as well.  There was not any mud on the upper ~ 5 feet of the core pipe or on 
any of the core weight or fins.  Gravity core 06GC appears to have stuck 
upright in the mud, pulled out with a reasonable tension and somehow been 
flushed nearly clean of mud on the way back to the surface - all this without 
inverting the stainless steel core catcher fingers.  

(As a side note of scientific serendipity:  After further exhaustive inquiry 
and debate it appears that the only “reasonable scientific explanation” for 
mud smear on the outside of the 06GC core barrel and only clear water inside 
the barrel is that we re-cored the same hole.  With tongue in cheek, we would 
like to commend the crew of the USCGC Healy on their excellent ship handling 
abilities and station keeping prowess in order to accomplish this feat.  To 
my knowledge, this is the first documented case of this coring phenomenon 
ever recorded in the annals of the Journal of Irreproducible Results. --- CM)


ONBOARD CORE ANALYSES

BULK DENSITY SAMPLES AND VANE SHEAR

Jason Ressler, University of Rhode Island, performed other tests on the 
piston cores (01PC, 02PC, 03PC and 04PC) and gravity core (05GC) while aboard 
the ship included sampling for bulk density and vane shear.  This was done by 
extracting constant volume sub-samples and using the Torque Watch, 
respectively.  Tests were performed at gross intervals at the bottom of each 
core section and also at the sediment water interface.  

Vane sheer tests will give a first indication of the shear strength and thus 
stress history of the sediment  -  i.e. glaciated or non-glaciated.  

Because cores are susceptible to desiccation and most liners are actually 
permeable, bulk density measurements are done for quality assurance.  The 
volume of each bulk density sub-sample was approximately 7.7 cc.  Voids 
created during this process were plugged with Styrofoam, and this data will 
be used as a check against the gamma-attenuated, bulk density data measured 
by the Multi-Sensor Track back in the lab.  

In addition, the overburden stress on the sediment can be derived from the 
bulk density data.  The relationship between stress and shear strength will 
give a viewpoint of the cores with respect to age.  

NOTE: Constant volume samples taken for bulk density were taken off center 
in the working half of the core at the bottom of each core section and also 
at the core top.  The vane sheer tests were done on the centerline at the 
bottom of each core section, which will be cut when the core is split.  

A Sampling Table of bulk density and vane shear 


                            Depth in   Depth in    Bulk    Vane Sheer
     Core ID       Section  Sec. (cm)  Core (cm)  Density   (oz*in)*
     ------------  -------  ---------  ---------  -------  ----------
     HLY0301-01PC    1          0          0         X        1.5
     HLY0301-01PC    1         58         58         X        7.5
     HLY0301-01PC    2        150        208         X        9.5
     HLY0301-01PC    3        150        358         X        7
     HLY0301-01PC    4        150        508         X        8
     HLY0301-01PC    5        150        658**       X        5
     HLY0301-01PC    6        150        808**       X       14.5
     HLY0301-01PC    7         76        884**       X        6
     HLY0301-01PC    8         90        974**       X        9
                                   
     HLY0301-02PC    1         50         50         X        2
     HLY0301-02PC    2        150        200         X        6
     HLY0301-02PC    3        150        350         X       15
     HLY0301-02PC    4        150        500         X       20
                                   
     HLY0301-03PC    1         38         38         X        1
     HLY0301-03PC    2        150        188         X        9.5
                                   
     HLY0301-04PC    1         0           0         X        NA***
     HLY0301-04PC    1        40.5        40.5       X        1.5
     HLY0301-04PC    2        151.5      192         X        7
     HLY0301-04PC    3        151.5      343.5       X       12.5
     HLY0301-04PC    4        150.5      494         X       15.5
     HLY0301-04PC    5        155        649         X        7.5
                                   
     HLY0301-05GC    1          0          0         X        NA***
     HLY0301-05GC    1         10         10         X        2.5
     HLY0301-05GC    2         60         70         X        1.5
     HLY0301-05GC    3        151        221         X        1.5
     HLY0301-05GC    4        150.5      371.5       X        1.5
                              
     HLY0301-06GC    No tests performed on recovered sediment.
                              
   * Torque Watch reading.  Data must be converted to shear strength. 
  ** Depths not adjusted for unseen voids in core. 
 *** Sediment contains too much water to perform test. 


MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY MEASUREMENTS

Magnetic susceptibility is a non-destructive measurement of the magnetic 
concentration of the sediment.  Because of its simplicity and rapid 
measurement time, it’s commonly measured shipboard to identify lithologic 
variations and correlate neighboring sediment records.  Susceptibility can be 
useful for identifying possible sediment sources and, when coupled with other 
mineral magnetic measurements, it can be a useful climate proxy.  For 
instance, glacial/interglacial cycles have been identified in susceptibility 
records from lacustrine, marine and terrestrial sediments.  The climatic and 
environmental conditions associated with glacial and interglacial periods 
have a distinct impact on the depositional environment by altering such 
things as sediment type and/or depositional process.  The Canadian Arctic 
Archipelago is particularly sensitive to glacial/interglacial transitions as 
well as short-term climate oscillations.  As a result, the sediments found in 
Baffin Bay and Hall Basin should provide useful information about the effects 
of glaciation on drainage and circulation in this area as well as the timing 
of shorter scale climate changes.  


METHODS

After allowing the cores to equilibrate to room temperature, Chip Heil, 
Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, measured 
the magnetic susceptibility at 2-cm intervals using a 125mm diameter 
Bartington M.S.2.C loop sensor.  


PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Baffin Bay

Figure 1 shows magnetic susceptibility for the four piston cores taken on the 
shelf and slope of Baffin Island (HLY0301 –01PC, HLY0301 –02PC, HLY0301 –
03PC, and HLY0301 –04PC).  Sedimentation rates decrease down slope along a 
southwest trending transect; core 01PC (the western-most, shallowest site) 
having the highest sedimentation rate and core 04PC (the eastern-most, 
deepest site) having the lowest sedimentation rate.  The four cores correlate 
well based on magnetic susceptibility (Figure 1).  From these correlations, 
it appears that 02PC recovered the most complete portion of the upper unit 
while core 01PC recovered the oldest sediment.  It is important to note that 
the data for core 01PC has been edited to remove voids.  Voids were 
interpreted from near zero susceptibility values (voids found in section 5 at 
10-28 cm and 42-128 cm as well as section 6 at 46-90 cm). There appears to be 
2 distinct sediment regimes; the upper unit is characterized by lower 
susceptibility values while the lower unit has higher, more variable magnetic 
susceptibility values.  The low susceptibility unit is probably the Holocene 
unit identified as Tinktartuq mud in Huntec seismic records from the Buchan 
Gulf.  The lower unit of high susceptibility values likely correlates with 
the glacial Davis Strait silts identified in the same Huntec records of the 
Buchan Gulf.  These interpretations agree well with seismic data obtained 
shipboard prior to coring in which a more acoustically reflective layer 
(Davis Strait silts) was overlain by a more acoustically transparent unit 
(Tiniktartuq mud).  There are also several sharp peaks in magnetic 
susceptibility in the lower unit (glacial) and at the transition from between 
the two units.  The relative size and spacing of these peaks suggest the 
possibility of Heinrich events.  However, resolution of this possibility 
requires more detailed measurements including age constraints.


HALL BASIN

Magnetic susceptibility for gravity core HLY0301 –05GC is shown in Figure 2.  
The data shows high amplitude variability in the upper ~2.5 m of the core, 
while the lower ~1.5 m shows lower values with smaller amplitude variability.  
The upper unit appears to have some cyclic variability possibly associated 
with shorter-scale climate change.  


RECOMMENDATION FOR GRAVITY CORING ABOARD USCGC HEALY

AN ALTERNATIVE GIANT CORING METHOD

The giant gravity corer cradle holding the giant gravity corer on the USCGC 
Healy is mounted on the 02 Deck  of the ship far above the water and the 
starboard A-frame block from which the giant gravity corer is deployed.  The 
starboard crane located even higher on the 04 Deck level is needed to move 
the corer from its cradle on the 02 Deck to a position under the starboard A-
frame block for launching into the sea.  Moving the giant gravity corer from 
its cradle to the final lowering position is a cumbersome process requiring a 
crane operator, a bosun, and several tag line handlers.  In heavy seas and 
high winds, this whole process becomes a dangerous operation in which the 
corer becomes a giant “pendulum” because the crane lifting point is so high 
in the air – jib out and boom up.

On coring cruises when the piston corer is not used, the giant gravity corer 
could be placed in the jumbo piston corer cradle which is bolted to the main 
deck under the starboard A-frame.  This would eliminate entirely the need for 
the starboard 04 deck crane to move the giant gravity corer into position.

The only modification to the jumbo piston corer cradle would be the addition 
of a one half inch thick steel plate inside the bottom of the cradle to hold 
the smaller giant gravity corer.  The steel plate would have to be circular 
with a diameter of 19-1/2 inches and with a seven inch wide slot cut in it to 
match the slot in the side of the core cradle.  The slot would extend from 
the circular edge of the plate to a point  13 inches in toward the center.  
This plate would then need to be bolted in place to prevent movement.

The only drawback to using the jumbo piston corer cradle as a giant gravity 
corer cradle is that the coring technician would have to lie on the main deck 
in order to attach the core liner, lifting clamp, etc. in place.  Care would 
have to be taken on cores longer than 12 feet so that the core tube would not 
be snapped off  in heavy seas.



SEABEAM MAPPING


SEABEAM 2112 PERFORMANCE
Roger Davis
Hawaii Mapping Research Group
University of Hawaii
(July 21 to August 16, 2003)

Healy's SeaBeam 2112 multibeam swath mapping system was operated continuously 
over the duration of Healy-0301 with the exception of three time periods as 
described below where significant outages occurred due to system malfunction. 
There were various other minor outages due to deliberate shutdown to avoid 
acoustic interference with conflicting science activities. All times noted 
below are GMT.

The first major outage was caused by a hard disk drive failure within the 
2112 system on July 22 at 05:30. The system was temporarily restarted using 
the same disk drive, but repeated errors later in the day ultimately forced a 
replacement of the drive. Inadequate documentation on software 
reconfiguration of the replacement drive caused the outage to be 
substantially larger in duration than it should have been. The 2112 was 
returned to operation around 18:00 of the same day, and improved 
documentation on the reconfiguration procedure was generated and inserted 
into the maintenance manuals.

The second substantial outage occurred on August 6 between 16:30 and 22:50. 
The system stopped logging data despite giving the appearance of operating 
normally. Ultimately Healy's ETs were called in and reseated a few ribbon 
cable connectors inside the 2112 chassis that appeared to be loose. The 
problems did not recur for several days.

The third and final major outage occurred at 04:30 on August 11. Again the 
system stopped logging data while appearing to function normally. Multiple 
restarts (including power cycling) failed to fix the problem. Ultimately the 
magneto-optical system disk was swapped out (more on a whim than on any 
substantial evidence of failure) and the system began working again. It was 
noticed that one of the DSP boards was displaying an unusual LED pattern 
which may or may not indicate a hardware failure.

The second and third outages as described above appear similar in nature, may 
be related, and ultimately may be indicative of an ongoing problem that has 
not yet been solved.

Bathymetric data quality appeared reasonable for the most part when the 
system was operational. The 2112 normally delivered between 55 beams (shallow 
water) and 100 (beams) deeper water under most conditions. It chronically 
returns noisy data along the track centerline and usually has along-track 
artifacts on both port and starboard sides (more pronounced to port) near the 
swath edges which appear as a narrow, shallow gully. Peculiar data were 
returned around 18:50 on July 23 where some system aberration resulted in the 
generation of a series of across-track ridges alternating between port and 
starboard. This happened along a near-north heading and may be related to VRU 
problems.

Sidescan imagery required extensive angle-varying gain correction, providing 
useful data in some areas. Most of the surveyed terrain was relatively 
featureless, with the more interesting imagery occurring generally within the 
Nares Strait region.

See the following 3 pages for geographic coverage.



SCIENCE AVIATION


SUMMARY OF SCIENCE MISSIONS BY HELICOPTER
By John Simpkins III
COAS
Oregon State University


Helicopter Specifications

The Healy carries two HH-65B Short Range Recovery (SRR) helicopters.  A 
product of the Aerospatiale Helicopter Corporation, these twin engine, 4-
blade foldable main rotor aircraft are designed for short range search and 
rescue operations.  These helicopters are equipped with dual flight controls 
augmented by an Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS), search radar, 
advanced navigation systems, retractable skis and a 600 pound capacity rescue 
hoist.  The maximum unrestricted gross weight of the helicopter is 8,900 
pounds.  This allows a maximum load of about 2,250 pounds consisting of crew, 
cargo and fuel (maximum of 1,800 pounds.)  Average cruising speed is about 
120 knots.  Average fuel burn rate is about 600 pounds/hour.  The useful 
range is determined by the fuel/cargo distribution.

Mission 1: Eastern Smith Sound
2 August 2003, 06:50 – 08:40 ADST

Objectives

Reconnaissance of sites proposed for the collection of clams and for the 
deployment of long-term moorings for the measurement of sea level. 

Good sites to collect clams include general characteristics of appropriate 
benthic habitat, the remoteness of the site from local influences and, for 
the small-boat dive operations, the likelihood of good working conditions at 
the site on the day in question.  Habitat considerations include shelter from 
ice scour, the presence of fine-grained sediment (mud), and supply of organic 
matter from biological productivity this latter being assessed from 
observations of, for example, macrophytic algae in the shallows or clamshells 
on beaches, or the presence in the region of benthic feeders such as walrus, 
bearded seals and diving ducks.  To record the large scale signals in Nares 
Strait we are adopting two strategies to minimise local influences; 1) we 
avoid sites near major inflowing rivers and 2) we propose to collect clams 
from water depths below the surface layer but within the range of depths 
where much of the freshwater transport is likely to occur in Nares Strait (5 
– 30 m).  Suitable sites for pressure-recorder moorings should have 
characteristics similar to those favouring clams (soft sediment, little 
chance of ice scour).  However, the importance of shelter from ice is much 
higher than for the clam work.  The required depth for mooring deployment is 
20 m.  Additionally there is a need for ease of access by ski plane operating 
from the ice in winter. 

Aircraft
6519

Flight Crew
LT Greg Matyas, LT Gary Naus and AVT2 John Maghupoy

Observers
Humfrey Melling and Robie Macdonald

Route
The aircraft flew north from Healy towards Foulke Fjord, completed a circuit 
of the fjord, circled Littleton Island and continued northeast to Cape 
Hatherton. Turning back, we examined the coastline south past Cape Alexander 
before returning to Healy.

Assessment

Nine sites were logged as having high potential for the clam work.  Most 
promising was the narrow channel between Littleton Island and a small unnamed 
island to the north. The waters surrounding islets to the south of the mouth 
of Foulke Fjord were the secondary interest.

The region immediately behind a rocky spine that cuts halfway across Foulke 
Fjord from the south was selected for the pressure-recorder mooring.


Photographs
No digital photographs taken 


Mission 2: Alexandra Fjord
3 August 2003, 11:00 – 13:00 ADST

Objectives
Reconnaissance of sites proposed for the collection of clams and for the 
deployment of long-term moorings for the measurement of sea level.

Aircraft
6521

Flight Crew
LT Damon Williams and AMT1 Raymond O’dell

Observers
Yves Sivret and Jay Simpkins

Route

The aircraft left Healy off Cape Isabella in western Smith Sound and flew 
north to Pin Island and west to Alexandra Fjord. It skirted the steep terrain 
on the northern side of the fjord, circled the group of islets in the centre 
and completed a reconnaissance of the southern shore from west of the camp 
during the return flight to Healy.

Assessment

The shores of Alexandra Fjord showed little promise for either purpose 
because of steep slopes, rocky beaches or local rivers.  

The un-named islands west of Skraeling Island revealed potential for both 
clam collection and as shelter from ice. Soundings on a chart from the 
Canadian Hydrographic Service confirmed the presence of water of suitable 
depth in this area.

Photographs

The photo titles indicate major features depicted. There are 4 small unnamed 
islands west of Skraeling Island.  They are identified in the photos as 
Cairn, 5m, 3m & 15m (east to west) using the only notations found on the 
existing chart of the fjord.  


Mission 3: Western Kane Basin
3 August 2003, morning

Objectives

Ice reconnaissance for the transit north to Kennedy Channel. A secondary 
objective was the identification of potential clam and mooring sites in bays 
along the western side of Kane Basin, time permitting. The preferred location 
for this reconnaissance was Scoresby Bay.

Aircraft
6519

Flight Crew
LCDR Robert Young, LT Greg Matyas and AMT1 Trevin Dabney

Observers
Yves Sivret and OPS-LT Darryl Peloquin

Route

The flight proceeded north from Healy near the Bache Peninsula. Wind and poor 
visibility prevented the aircraft from proceeding as far as Scoresby Bay. A 
brief photo-reconnaissance of the smaller Maury Bay was completed before the 
aircraft turned back south.

Assessment

No firm decisions on sites for clam collection or mooring could be made from 
information gathered on this sortie.

Photographs
The photo titles indicate major features depicted.


Mission 4: Kane Basin
3 August 2003, 21:30

Objectives

Ice reconnaissance for the transit north to Kennedy Channel and ice 
conditions in southern Kennedy Channel. 

Aircraft
6521

Flight Crew
LT Damon Williams, LT Gary Naus and AVTC Lorion Ledkins

Observers
Yves Sivret and Robert McCarthy

Route

The flight was intended to proceed north from Healy toward southern Kennedy 
Channel. A problem with the deicing system was indicated and the aircraft 
returned to the ship shortly after departure.

Assessment
None made.

Photographs
No digital photographs taken


Mission 5: Western Kennedy Channel
4 August 2003, morning

Objectives

Reconnaissance of sites proposed for the collection of clams and for the 
deployment of long-term moorings for the measurement of sea level. 

Aircraft
6521

Flight Crew
LCDR Robert Young, LT Gary Naus and AMT1 Raymond O’dell

Observers
Robie Macdonald and Gerhardt Behrens

Route

The flight left Healy near Cape Lawrence and proceeded northeast along the 
western side of Kennedy Channel to Cape Defosse. The aircraft returned via 
the same route.

Assessment

No firm decisions on sites for clam collection or mooring could be made from 
information gathered on this sortie.  Most of the shoreline was steep and 
directly exposed to ice drift in the main channel.  There were numerous 
instances of grounded ice and even ice still frozen in place to the bottom.  
The several embayments that showed some promise for clam habitat were in 
close proximity to an inflowing river and the aerial reconnaissance was 
helpful in identifying ice scour in most of these embayments.

Photographs
The photo titles indicate major features depicted.


Mission 6: Southern Kennedy Channel
5 August 2003, 17:30 – 21:00 ADST

Objectives

Reconnaissance of sites proposed for the collection of clams and for the 
deployment of long-term moorings for the measurement of sea level. 
Reconnaissance of sites suggested for the deployment of automatic 
 
stations for measuring airflow in Nares Strait. Reconnaissance of sites for 
the shore camp needed to support this project during aircraft operations in 
the late winter of 2005 and 2007.

The characteristics of good anemometer sites includes low elevations, absence 
of local steep topography, good exposure to dominant north-east and south-
west winds and access by ski plane (land or sea ice) in winter. The 
characteristics of good sites for a base are many and varied. We worked with 
a subset of criteria that included proximity to the main mooring line in 
southern Kennedy Channel, shelter from prevailing winds, terrain suitable for 
landing ski and wheel aircraft close to where materials could be delivered to 
the beach by landing craft.

Aircraft
6519

Flight Crew
LT Greg Matyas, LT Damon Williams and AVT2 John Maghupoy

Observers
Humfrey Melling and Ed Hudson

Route

The flight proceeded north from Healy near Cape Jefferson, completing over-
flights of Crozier, Franklin and Hans Islands before turning eastward to the 
mouth of Alakratiak Fjord. From here, we followed the coast south-east to 
Cape Jefferson and south partway to Cape Madison before returning to the 
ship.

Assessment

Crozier Island rises about 200 m from the sea and is surrounded by cliffs on 
all sides. The top, appearing flat from a distance, has significant relief 
and is strewn with large rocks. The top is the only place for an anemometer 
and the local terrain makes this location unsuitable for measuring regional 
winds. It could only be reached by helicopter.

Franklin Island is larger, about the same height and is somewhat flatter on 
top. The western end is slightly lower. A Twin Otter might possibly land on 
top in winter, if there is enough snow to smooth the rocky surface. The 
general meteorological assessment is the same as for Crozier Island.

Hans Island is roughly dome-shaped and has about half the elevation. A new 
Danish flag fluttered at the peak. The island is shear sided at the water 
line except at the northwest, where it might be possible to travel up from 
the sea ice in winter. However, access from the ice might be difficult, owing 
to extreme pile-ups of ice rubble created by the crushing of drifting floes 
against the cliffs. Rubble remained piled to a height of about 10 m along 
much of the northern cliff at the time of this survey. Hans Island has an 
excellent position in the centre of the channel. This advantage might over-
ride the problems of access (helicopter probably required) and of steep local 
terrain of airflow.

Alakratiak Fjord is very shallow at the mouth, no more than a few metres as 
the seabed could be seen over a wide area. A spit obstructed much of the 
opening. There were many small floes grounded on the foreshore. The cliffs 
were soft, crumbling sandstone, with little evidence of vegetation above or 
below the water. The water deepened abruptly some distance behind the spit, 
but this area was spotted with small bergs calved from glaciers further up 
the fjord. This site was judged a poor prospect for clams and unsuitable for 
the deployment of the pressure-recording mooring.

There is a valley with two rivers at 81° 07’N just south of Cape Resser that 
might be suitable for a winter camp. There is a delta allowing convenient 
access to the beach. Extensive raised deltaic benches of fine soils offer 
good potential for aircraft access. The high land of Cape Resser offers 
protection from northerly winds.

The un-named arrow bay just south of Cape Independence is very steep-sided , 
with unstable slopes of scree making it unsuitable for a mooring site.

An even better prospect for a winter camp is a valley harbouring three rivers 
that enters the northern half of Lafayette Bay at 80° 57’N. There is a delta 
allowing convenient access to the beach. Extensive raised deltaic benches of 
fine soils offer good potential for aircraft access. The high land of Cape 
Independence offers shelter from northerly winds, high land to the south 
provides shelter in that direction, and Crozier Island is a buffer to the 
west. There is a broad area of raised beach beneath the cliffs to the south 
of the valley, extending to 80° 24.5’N.

The area south of Cape Jefferson is low lying with gentle slopes and many 
small lakes, bays, isthmus and peninsulas. Although there are areas where 
aircraft could land and where barges could be beached. The complexity of the 
terrain probably precludes these activities within a reasonable distance on 
one another. The landscape also offers very little shelter. 

However, for this reason this area is probably ideal for the sitting of an 
automatic weather station. It has excellent exposure to winds from the sector 
south-east to north. Exposure deteriorates towards the north-east, but 
terrain rises only slowing in this direction. The area offers plenty of 
landing sites for aircraft.

The near-shore has potential for the collection of clams.

Photographs
The photo titles indicate major features depicted.

Mission 7: Northern Kennedy Channel and Hall Basin
6 August 2003, 13:45 – 15:20 ADST

Objectives

Tactical ice support to Healy for a planned oceanographic section at Cape 
Bryan. Reconnaissance of sites proposed for the collection of clams and for 
the deployment of long-term moorings for the measurement of sea level. 
Reconnaissance of sites suggested for the deployment of automatic weather 
stations for measuring airflow in Nares Strait.

Aircraft
6519

Flight Crew
LT Gary Naus and AVT2 John Maghupoy

Observers
Humfrey Melling and Lee Narraway

Route

The aircraft flew north-east from a location near 81°N toward Cape Bryan. On 
completing reconnaissance of Hannah island at the mouth of Bessels Fjord and 
of Joe Island, we continued north-east to Off ey Island at the mouth of 
Petermann Fjord. The next way point was Discovery Harbour, from where the 
aircraft flew south-west along the western side of Kennedy Channel to reach 
Healy near Cape Defosse.

Assessment

The channel between Hannah Island and the mainland was very shallow (1-2 m). 
The deeper water behind the shallows was littered with many small bergs. The 
location was judged unsuitable for mooring a pressure-recorder.

Joe Island is dome shaped like Hans Island and about the same size. Its 
elevation is a little lower, and a steep walk-up may exist from the south-
west. Ice rubble may be a problem here also in winter if the island must be 
reached from an aircraft landing on adjacent sea ice. A helicopter is 
probably required. The island is at the side of the channel, which fact makes 
Hans Island the preferred of the two sites.

Off ey Island has an elevation of about 150 m. It has steep cliffs on the 
west and north sides but slopes gently to the east, permitting easy access to 
the summit from the sea ice. The land to the North and East is high (350 m) 
but not steep. Off ey Island could be suitable for an automatic weather 
station. There is a curving rocky spine at the east end of the island. This 
shelters a steep beach that could accommodate a pressure-recorder mooring. 
The seabed is darker at depth, perhaps indicating good clam habitat. However, 
a river that enters the bay from Greenland may compromise the value of this 
site for the present study.

Polaris Bay lay to our north as we crossed to Discovery Harbour. The valley 
behind the bay is about 15 km wide and the land behind rises gently to about 
350 m. The beach of Polaris Bay offers some advantages as an anemometer site 
with excellent exposure to the southwest.

Bellot Island, which shelters Discovery Harbour, is almost 700 m high. The 
are tow spits projecting to the east north-east. The more northerly is rocky 
with high elevation and steep shores. The other, terminating at Breakwater 
Point, is low lying. The latter offers excellent shelter from ice. It is 
highly rated as a site for a pressure-recorder mooring and for the collection 
of clams.

Cape Baird marks the northern end of the Judge Daly Promontory. It steps up 
from the sea in two slopes. Atop the first is a bench at about 60 m above sea 
level. This has excellent exposure to the northeast , since it projects far 
out into Hall Basin. Although our flight path precluded close inspection, it 
is likely that a Twin Otter could land on this bench for the installation of 
surface weather station.

There is a broad river delta south of Cape Defosse. This has acceptable 
exposure to the south, and possibly to the north, where a valley stretches to 
the shores of Lady Franklin Bay. Landing of a fixed-wing aircraft on the 
frozen delta in winter is probably practical.

Photographs
No digital photographs taken

Mission 8: Eastern Robeson Channel and Petermann Fjord
9 August 2003, 21:30 – 23:00 ADST

Objectives

Reconnaissance of Arctic Ocean ice edge in the Lincoln Sea.  Location of a 
suitable ice floe in which to hove to the ship for helo repairs and 
debarkation of the science party and crew to the ice was the primary 
objective.  Satellite photos showed a particularly large floe on the western 
half of the channel.  

Aircraft
6519

Flight Crew
LT Greg Matyas, LT Damon Williams and AVTC Lorion Ledkins
Yves Sivret and Glen Hendrickson

Route

The flight was meant to follow the ice edge at the Lincoln Sea.  Winds rose 
from 25 to 35 gusting to 45 kts as the aircraft prepared for take-off.  The 
captain aborted the mission in the interest of safety.

Assessment
None made.

Photographs
No digital photographs taken

Mission 9: Eastern Robeson Channel and Petermann Fjord
9 August 2003, 21:30 – 23:00 ADST

Objectives

Reconnaissance of Off ey Island and Petermann Fjord as tactical support for 
operations in ice at these locations. Off ey Island is proposed for the 
deployment of a mooring for the measurement of sea level. Geochemical 
stations will be occupied in Petermann Fjord to determine the geochemical 
signature of glacial meltwater input into Nares Strait.


Aircraft
6521

Flight Crew
LT Greg Matyas, LT Damon Williams and AVTC Lorion Ledkins

Observers
Dave Huntley and Glen Hendrickson

Route

The flight left Healy near Newman Bay (Robeson Channel) and proceeded south 
along the Polaris Promontory Cape Tyson. After an examination of ice 
conditions at Off ey Island, the aircraft flew up Petermann Fjord to the 
terminus of the glacier. It returned via the same route.

Assessment

Ice conditions are suitable for small-boat work with divers near Off ey 
Island, and for travel of Healy to the terminus of the Petermann Glacier.

Photographs
The photo titles indicate major features depicted.
Mission 10: Eastern Robeson Channel and Petermann Fjord
12 August 2003,  ADST

Objectives

Reconnaissance of Scoresby Sound, Maury Bay and Joiner Bay for location of a 
suitable bivalve retrieval site.

Aircraft
6519

Flight Crew
LCDR Robert Young, Lt Gary Naus and AMT1 Raymond O’dell

Observers
Robie Macdonald and Mary O’Brien

Route

The flight left Healy at anchor in Scoresby Sound and proceeded northwest to 
the shoreline of the sound.  It then followed the shoreline to the south 
through to Maury Bay and then north to Joiner Bay, back into Scoresby Sound 
and into its western reaches, then back to the ship.


Assessment

The shorelines in Maury Bay and Joiner Bay are extremely rugged, many of them 
essentially a continuation of above-water talus slopes.  Furthermore there 
was much evidence of grounded ice and bottom fast ice right against the 
shore.  There were virtually no protected embayments along the coast and some 
regions to the south of Scoresby Bay were turbid due to local inflow and 
would likely provide difficult conditions to dive in.  All of the region 
comprising the western part of Scoresby Bay was deemed a favorable habitat 
for clams due to the large silt supply; nevertheless, the proximity of 
inflows from a large drainage basin to this part of the bay ruled the region 
out as a favorable place for clams to record large-scale records of 
freshwater composition in Nares Strait.  Accordingly, a south-facing shore at 
the northern entrance to the Sound was selected as being the best one 
available for bivalve retrieval even though it appeared to provide poor 
benthic  habitat.  While not exposed directly to Nares Strait, this site 
appears to be in close communication with the Strait.  Furthermore, it is 
reasonably protected from the ice and wind making small boat ops reasonable 
especially given the relatively calm conditions occurring on this day.  
Finally, the small boat could work at this site while the Healy remained at 
anchor thus potentially saving the time that would be required to move the 
ship.

Photographs
No digital photographs taken


Document reviewed by:

Humfrey Melling 
Robie Macdonald
Jay SimpkinsEd Hudson



ICE IMAGERY


ICE SERVICES SPECIALIST REPORT
Yves Sivret
Canadian Ice Services


During Cats Healy 2003, ice conditions were more favorable than normal in all 
areas covered. See accompanying ice median charts for 30 July and 13 August 
(1971-2000 data) and regional charts for 28 July and 11 August.  Bergy water 
was encountered through Baffin Bay and into Smith Sound.  During the 
northward transit into Nares strait, an open pack of old and first year ice 
prevented a small boat operation into Alexandra Fjord. Otherwise, ice 
conditions did not cause significant scientific work delays or cancellations. 
Bergy water condition prevailed over the extreme western section of Kane 
basin. A small band of mostly old ice was encountered on the Greenland side 
of Kennedy channel then mostly bergy water conditions into Hall basin, Lady 
Franklin, Robeson channel and into the Lincoln sea as far north as 8226N. 
There were the occasional small areas of very open drift of old ice in 
Robeson Channel, Hall Basin and the approaches to Petermann glacier.

During our transit south, higher concentrations of mostly old ice were 
encountered in Kennedy Channel and into Northeastern Kane Basin. Afterward, 
bergy water condition in western Kane Basin, Alexandra Fjord and into Thule.

The latest ice information was received on a daily basis via Inmarsat and 
Iridium. Imagery consisted of Radarsat (Canadian Ice service and NIC), NOAA 
and OLS received on the ship’s Terascan system.  On occasions,  MODIS and 
enhanced NOAA imagery was received from CIS.



WEATHER


WEATHER  - CANADIAN ARCHIPELAGO THROUGHFLOW STUDY (CATS)
Ed Hudson, meteorologist
Prairie Aviation and Arctic Weather Centre
Meteorological Service of Canada


Background 

The Prairie Aviation and Arctic Weather Centre (PAAWC) does the marine, 
aviation, and public weather forecasting for Nunavut and the Northwest 
Territories.  I personally have been forecasting for the arctic for 30 plus 
years.  I am the lead marine forecaster for the Centre and was the principle 
author for a just completed aviation weather handbook for Nunavut and the 
Arctic.

Overview 

CATS Healy 2003 gave me the opportunity to see the marine and aviation  
perspective of the weather across Baffin Bay and the waterway between 
Ellesmere Island and Greenland.  It afforded me an opportunity to share what 
knowledge I had about the weather of the area with others. The voyage on the 
Healy additionally allowed me to see  what and how weather information is 
acquired and briefed  “operationally” by ship personnel in support of vessel, 
small boat, science, and aviation activities.  The voyage gave me an 
opportunity to acquire and put to use / check out the utility of web products 
for real time use in onsite weather forecasting for the CATS 2003 science 
area.  I got to experience first hand the effect of weather on ship and 
science activities and the impact of forecasts on planning activities.  I 
note that “external” weather information is acquired from the web via 
InMarSat except north of about 80N where InMarSat no longer functions and 
Iridium must be used.   Timing of weather briefings on the ship, web access 
times, and the speed of the web down loads meant that new material was 
routinely ‘out there’ at the time of the weather briefings. When external 
weather material such as surface and upper air analyses, prognostic charts, 
wind depiction charts, and weather observations were not available / had 
become dated, one had only the observations of what was around them and what 
information one could infer from the DMSP and NOAA polar orbiter satellite 
imagery acquired in real  time onboard via a Sea Space Tera Scan system for 
weather forecasting and briefing.  Fortunately , access to at least a few 
charts always occurred.   


Weather overview 

The dominant wind direction throughout the CATS Healy 2003 science period was 
southerly and these winds were routinely 20 knots or more and at times gale 
to storm force strength.   That said, during mooring day (5 August) winds 
were light and skies were sunny.  A shift from light easterly winds to gale 
strength southerly winds the evening of 7 August while the Healy was in 
Kennedy Channel was well handled  by prog charts.  13 August. the sudden 
shift and strengthening of winds from moderate easterly winds to winds to 50 
knots while small boat operations were occurring in the Alexandra Fiord area 
was not well handled by prog charts.  The winds settled down within 2 hours.  
In both the 7 August and 13 August cases, a cold front looks like the trigger 
for the strong winds.      


Pre-voyage Activities

arranged for “Kane” wind visualizations out  to 72 hours to be produced at 
the PAAWC.  The charts are 3 hourly out to 48 hours and then 12 hourly out to 
120 hours.  Visualizations out to 48 hours at 6 hourly  increments were 
ported to Canadian Ice Service for remote access by Canadian Ice Service 
specialists. The following are sections of the wind visualizations.  
Subjectively, the wind visualizations were 5 to 10 knots light when they 
depicted winds 15 knots or more.   

 
During voyage activities  

• alerted onboard Coast Guard Marine Science Technicians to MSC’s  web page / 
  products on the web page which  I felt would be useful for their weather 
  briefings  ( http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca)
• alerted the pilots to the aviation link on the MSC web site
• provided the pilots materials from the aviation weather handbook for Pond 
  Inlet, Grise Fiord, Resolute, and Cambridge Bay  
• Accessed the MSC web site daily and downloaded prog charts and wind 
  visualizations 
• Provided weather consultation / opinion on an ad hoc basis to the MST’s, 
  the lead science persons Kelly Falkner and Humfrey Melling,  CIS Ice 
  Specialist Yves Sivret, and the ship captain starting about day 3 of the 
  cruise, provided a weather briefing at the daily science meeting. The 
  weather briefings evolved from verbal to a structured projection 
  presentation – latest surface analysis, surface prog charts, and finally 
  Kane wind depiction charts out to 48 hours.  
• given opportunity on 2 occasions to present a weather briefing at the ship 
  captain’s evening meeting.  The evening weather brief is a function done by 
  the Coast Guard Marine Science Technicians.
• routinely  accessed the Tera Scan system and posted imagery for viewing.  
  During the last week, saved softcopy of  sample Tera Scan acquired imagery


For consideration for such science missions on the Healy

• if there is a Canadian Ice Service ice specialist onboard, arrange for him 
  to do weather observations at whatever synoptic or intermediate synoptic 
  hours that occur during his duty day.  On CATS Healy – 2003, there were 
  occasions during which an MST was not available to do a weather observation 
  and hence no weather observation was done.   
• set up a mapping area on the Tera Scan system that corresponds to the 
  science study area and map all passes that cover say 60% of the area.   
  Such mapping facilitates looping and hence tracking of cloud movement and 
  cloud expansion and contraction
• stand alone data files for true wind, atmospheric air pressure and air 
  temperature that includes ship position   
• display and save Tera Scan imagery on a daily basis  
• on specialty products such as the Kane visualizations, label a few key  
  sits on the base map


Items that I will investigate / pursue / do

• meteorology of the 13 August wind event
• sample verification of the Kane wind visualization charts  
• smaller file size for wind visualization graphics
• restructuring of the PAAWC arctic wind visualization areas / level of 
  detail
• creation of prog chart quilts by area for the arctic and their placement on 
  the web
• ftp site for forecast products for the arctic  
• date / time labeling at top of all charts / images on the 
  http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca  web site.  Web access at high latitudes can 
  be painfully slow and it is frustrating to download a full image only to 
  find that it is an old image.  Date/ time stamping at the top facilitates 
  acquiring only the top arctic section of an image and doing a print screen 
  rather than waiting for the complete image to download.

Filed Friday 15 August by Ed Hudson  



INUIT PERSPECTIVE


LETTER FROM PAULOOSIE AKEEAGOK
Nunavut Research Institute


My name is Pauloosie Akeeagok, and I am from Grise Fiord, Nunavut.  This 
summer, I had the opportunity to take part in a scientific program in the 
Canadian Archipelagos, between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. There were 35 
scientists from both Canada and the United States, studying the waters from 
Baffin Bay to the Lincoln Sea. They researched ocean currents, mapped the sea 
floor, sampled sediments and collected clams to increase their understanding 
of climate history and fresh water flows in the Arctic.

After seeing a posting on the bulletin board in the Hamlet of Grise Fiord for 
a summer job opportunity to work with the scientific expedition, I submitted 
my name and was accepted to participate and represent my people, territory, 
and culture. I communicated with Kelly Falkner, chief scientist, and Humfrey 
Melling, co chief scientist for several weeks prior to sailing and joined the 
scientific team in St. Johns, Newfoundland.   I was excited to set sail.   
This was an opportunity of a lifetime to learn about the projects that are 
going on in the lands where my ancestors have lived in for thousands of 
years.  Not only did I represent Inuit, I also was a field assistant 
throughout the voyage and played a huge part in observing the activities. 
This gave me the chance to learn first hand what scientists do in our area, 
and also how to use scientific instruments such as the CTD-rosette system.  
This takes 24, 10 liter Niskin (water) bottles down to the ocean and 
retrieves samples at certain depths. Then it measures the conductivity, 
temperature, and depth.

On the first couple of days, I was getting oriented to the ship and the 
people I was going to be working with for 4 weeks.  I occasionally felt lost 
and needed some guidance to find things to do. I had time to meet new people 
both from the science party and the crew of the ship. This was when the 
scientist were getting their equipment ready for their 4 week projects.  

I participated in the coring of the seabed. The information that we collected 
from the coring will help us learn more about the climate history of the 
Arctic through a number of tests such as looking at the magnetic 
susceptibility (indicates how much magnetic material is in the samples). This 
was one of the most interesting tasks I had throughout the whole expedition 
since I was fully part of the coring team. Also, since climate change is 
affecting the Arctic vastly, it was good to learn their theories, and the 
analysis they will do once they return to the south.

Throughout the whole project, there were several things that I found quite 
disturbing. The first was how much garbage the USCGC Healy ship throws away 
in the Arctic Ocean. I was taught by my parents and the elders that if 
there’s enough room to bring what you brought, there’s enough room to bring 
garbage back to where you received it. There, it would be disposed of 
properly instead of just dumping it into the ocean. If ships continue to come 
north and dump their garbage, our beautiful Arctic ocean will be 
contaminated.  This is of great significance to us, the Inuit, as most of the 
traditional food we eat comes from the ocean.

Secondly, what disturbed me a lot was when we were enjoying the great meals 
they served on the 12th of August and someone from the crew of the USCGC 
Healy announced through the loud speaker that they were allowing “anyone” to 
go out and fish for Arctic char. I was stunned to hear the ship announce the 
fishing free-for-all without any fishing license or permits from the 
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).  When I enquired about whether or 
not they had a license, the response was, “Are you going to arrest us now?”  
I feel that expeditions into Nunavut should be aware of the restrictions and 
guidelines contained in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.  These guidelines 
are the result of years of hard work and negotiations by the passionate Inuit 
political leaders. After going to Nunavut Sivuniksavut and studying our 
history, I am now aware of how the outside world came north and did what ever 
they wanted to do up here, and how that can no longer continue.

Throughout the Canadian Archipelago Throughflow Study (CATS) project, I have 
realized the need for communication between the scientists and the Inuit.  
While growing up in Grise Fiord, Nunavut, I have seen scientific teams come 
and go.  Questions always arose once they left.  “What do they do up in the 
Arctic where we (Inuit) live?”

With me being on the project, it gave the chance to contribute in a lot of 
ways, such as: giving Inuktitut words every day to the scientific team for 
them to communicate with Inuit in the future expeditions and giving power 
point presentations about Inuit history to both the scientific team and the 
crew of the ship.  This gave them a better understanding of what Inuit went 
through; the loss and regaining of power, independence and control of their 
own lives and future.  These presentations helped me realize where Inuit fit 
in the world.  After hearing comments and feedback from the crew and 
scientific team, I realized they had great respect for our people and an 
interest in learning more about who we are.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Kelly Falkner and Humfrey Melling for 
giving me the chance to participate, help out and learn what they do in the 
beautiful oceans of the north. I would like to congratulate the scientific 
team on their success and hope the best for their future voyages. This has 
been a once in a lifetime experience that I will never forget. I hope that 
future scientific projects in Nunavut will continue to share and exchange 
knowledge with the Inuit.

Pauloosie Akeeagok 


CHIEF SCIENTIST'S NOTES REGARDING INUIT PARTICIPATION
K. Kenison Falkner
16 September 2003

During the last week of the cruise, I requested that Pauloosie Akeeagok write 
a 1 to 2 page summary of his experiences on board the Healy to include in 
this cruise report.  The previous 2 pages constitute his response to my 
request that he turned in to me on August 13, 2003.  I was pleased to receive 
his thoughtful input.  We responded to a few of the issues that he raised 
while we were still on board the ship because I felt that it was important to 
be proactive and respectful of his viewpoints.

On August 14, we called Pauloosie to the Captain's conference room to discuss 
overboard dumping of wastes and the fishing incident.  Present were the 
Captain, the Executive Officer, Humfrey Melling and myself.  We first assured 
Pauloosie that our meeting with him was not in any form a reprimand.  We told 
him that we appreciated both the positive and negative observations in his 
report.  He was on board, in part, to sensitize us to issues of which we 
might otherwise be unaware and had done his job well.  

Pauloosie had expressed general concern about dumping wastes over the side.  
The executive officer informed Pauloosie that the ship was following 
international marine pollution protocols.  Under those protocols, food waste 
is permitted to be put overboard when greater than 3 nautical miles away from 
the coast and materials of the cardboard category can be put overboard at 
greater than 25 nautical miles.  The ship was otherwise incinerating or 
retaining non-burnables in a bin on decks or in other hazardous waste 
containers.  Pauloosie was told that the international protocols (MARPOL 
Treaty) can be found via the web (i.e. 
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/OCPD/marpol.html) if he or other members of the 
Nunavut community wished to view the specifics.  Pauloosie asked a few 
additional questions which the Captain answered.

We then we discussed the fishing incident.  The Captain began the discussion 
by apologizing for the making the call to fish.  He also said that he was 
intending to write a letter to the Nunavut Research Institute formally 
apologizing for the incident.  He also expressed commitment to ensure that 
proper licenses be obtained in the future before allowing any crew members to 
put their rods in the water.  (A copy of that letter sent on August 16 from 
Thule follows these notes.) 

In wrapping up our discussion, Pauloosie reiterated that I might want to be 
aware for future missions, during which people like himself might 
participate, that he felt a bit "lost" at the beginning.  Unfortunately he 
was beset by motion sickness soon after we set sail, which is most definitely 
a "lonely" experience.  He was unable to participate in the initial briefings 
given by the ship to the science party as a result.  I did arrange with the 
nurse on board to provide him with Scopolamine patches to get him through 
this rough stage.

Several people in the science party, and Lee Narraway in particular, made 
special efforts right from the beginning to interact and include Pauloosie in 
activities.  Lee helped Pauloosie to organize some Inuktitut lessons for our 
daily science meeting, which helped him to become more integrated into that 
gathering.  Upon his own accord, he volunteered to make a presentation to 
interested people on the ship regarding the founding of Nunavut.  It was so 
well done that he was asked to give it a second night to the folks who had 
been on watch the first time.  He claimed he was very nervous in speaking to 
the group but he managed to overcome his nerves.  While Pauloosie contributed 
to many of the science activities, he seemed to find his stride in 
participating in the coring activities.  He both learned a lot and made 
substantial contributions to that program.  I thank Chris Moser for being an 
inclusive and apt team leader for the coring operation.



PHOTOJOURNALISM


PHOTO-JOURNALIST SUMMARY
Lee Narraway
15 August 2003

While on board the Healy, I photographed the science team at work, the ship 
operations, landscapes, seascapes, weather conditions and limited wildlife.  
I was able to take photos during a helicopter reconnaissance flight and on 
small boat operations with the mooring and clamming crews.  An enjoyable 
afternoon was spent on Bellot Island, photographing the dive ops from shore 
and the land itself. 

I helped with the CTD rosette samples, cooked pizza on crew morale night, 
decorated a birthday cake for Peter Gamble and another cake for the ship's 
crew on Coast Guard Day.  I helped with the daily Inuktitut lesson and taught 
an "Improve Your Photography" course.  This was attended by the science group 
as well as the ship's crew.  It has been rewarding for me to see the 
improvement in the photographs taken during this voyage.  

When I return home, I will be submitting photos and related stories to 
magazines.


Note:  Lee is a regular contributor to "Above and Beyond" and "Up North" 
flight magazines as well as other venues for spectacular photography of the 
North and its people.



THE WEBSITE


Upkeep of the Canadian Archipelago Throughflow Study Website: 
http://newark.cms.udel.edu/~cats/
Lauren Brown and Andreas Münchow
University of Delaware
15 August 2003


1.  Introduction

The daily creation, update and maintenance of the Canadian Archipelago 
Throughflow Study website includes the formatting and uploading of all HTML 
text files as well as pictures and figures. I worked on a daily basis with 
two teachers, Gerhard Behrens and Robert McCarthy, who were responsible for 
writing the logs. Once they had passed the information to me, I put the text 
into HTML format and place them on the local network. From the local network 
I was able to upload these files to a remote server in Newark, Delaware where 
they were available for public viewing. 

2.  Method

At the beginning of the cruise, I used the Inmarsat Internet connectivity to 
upload the files via Safe FTP. When we were north of 79 degrees latitude, we 
had to use the 2400 baud Iridium system to connect to the internet. I was 
using the Putty Safe FTP client to upload the files. The problem with this 
client was that each individual file to be uploaded had to be entered by 
hand. Not only was there not a way to queue the files and check back on their 
progress, the process was time consuming and was not readily available for my 
use due to other operational needs (ice observation, weather charts, 
satellite imagery, etc.). After several unsuccessful and tedious attempts to 
get data off the ship using the Windows command line with varied problems 
(permissions, protocols and mutual handshakes between different computer and 
communication systems), we finally settled on the BulletProof FTP client as a 
means to upload the files with minimal problems involved. This system worked 
well after University of Delaware systems administrator, Randy Rokosz, 
switched a Safe FTP server to a less secure FTP server. 



3.  List of Daily website entries

Daily Logs

Please select a name below to see the individual log.
Bob McCarthy | Gerhard Behrens | Andreas Münchow 

Log August-15-2003
Report Card for CATS
Last day on the ship. Since I am a teacher, it must be time for a report 
card... More 

Log August-14-2003
The Strongest Fictitious Force “Around"
We are fortunate to have a meteorologist on the Healy with us. So much of the 
research plans depend... More 

Log August-13-2003
Dive, XBT! Dive!
Two days ago I mentioned that I took 3 CTD casts on the small boat just to 
feel useful... More 


Log August-12-2003
I'm Happy!
A helo ride, breaking through ice, an excursion on the Healy 3 small boat, 
tasted an iceberg... More 

Log August-11-2003
Walking on the land
Gerhard Behrens and I were privileged to accompany Drs. Humfrey Melling and 
Helen Johnson on a small boat excursion... More 

Log August-10-2003
Morale night
Last night was “morale night” on the Healy. Each Saturday night, a different 
unit helps... More 

Log August-9-2003
What color would you be?
Last night, after our daily science meeting in the conference room, we were 
treated to a video... More 

Log August-8-2003
No more "ball and chain"
The Challenger Expedition was the first “Oceanographic cruise”. Their sole 
mission was to... More 

Log August-7-2003
Back for clams
The six heroes are back in the water today; first to place another bottom 
secured... More 

Log August-6-2003
Ride of a lifetime
This heading could pertain to this entire research cruise; the scenery and 
breaking through ice... More 

Log August-5-2003
Message on a float
Yesterday and today the scientists and crew were deploying acoustic current 
meters... More 

Log August-4-2003
We're here!
Today we started to place the expensive moorings in the water... More 

Log August-3-2003
A three ring circus
It’s Sunday, but as I wrote last week, it is a regular workday for the 
scientists and much of the Healy Crew... More 

Log August-2-2003
Who wants to go swimming?
The ocean water temperature is 2.75oC, which is about 37oF... More 


Log August-1-2003
Electricity to the rescue
Before I went off on the optics tangent, I was explaining about the coring 
operation... More 

Log July-31-2003
Cameras
Last night Lee Narraway gave a talk on photography... More 

Log July-30-2003
Celebrity
Lee Narraway is on the deck! Lee Narraway is on the deck! Quick get your... 
More 

Log July-29-2003
Coring equilibrium
Late last night and all day today the science crew spent piston-coring... 
More 

Log July-28-2003
Relaxing and working
Yesterday we saw land for the first time since we left St. John’s Harbor... 
More 

Log July-27-2003
The sound of water
I was talking with Dave Huntley this morning, about the instrumentation that 
will be thrown overboard... More 

Log July-26-2003
Water testing begins
While I'm waiting for the cups to return, my thoughts are in France, this 
being the penultimate day... More 

Log July-25-2003
Getting ready to collect important data
During the last few days, the scientists, the lab technicians, the mechanical 
specialists, and the Coast Guard... More 

Log July-24-2003
Labrador Sea
Today we passed into the Arctic Circle (Latitude 66 degrees, 40 minutes 
North), and we continue... More 

Log July-23-2003
Water, water everywhere
"Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink." This is one of those 
places... More 

Log July-22-2003
Steaming north
This is our second day of "steaming" north... More 

Log July-21-2003
First day at sea
On a more serious side, today we were instructed on the procedures to follow 
for real emergencies: general emergency, collisions... More 
Log July-20-2003
Leaving St. John's, Newfoundland
The scientists got themselves ready, too, but not always in the way you might 
guess... More 

Log July-18-2003
Arriving from Portland, Oregon
What a long day for us West-coasters. We left our Portland, OR, hotel at 5:00 
am, and arrived at the Healy, in St. John's, Newfoundland at midnight... More 


Log July-17-2003
Loading more gear in Newfoundland
After the Healy finished her 18 hour stop at a gas station in St. John's 
taking on 600,000 gallons of fuel, she ... More 

Log July-16-2003
Nerveous anticipation
I'm not on the Healy in the middle of Baffin Bay, nor am I on the ship in the 
St. John's harbor. I am ... More 

Log July-15-2003
Questions from Delaware
Tracey from Delaware send me the following questions today. Several crew 
members ask me similar questions, so ... More 

Log July-13-2003
Crossing the Gulfstream
All sensors went wild today as we are approached the northern extension of 
the Gulfstream. After sailing for 4 days in warm and salty sub-tropical 
waters a drop in... More 

Log July-12-2003
Preparing for Nares Strait moorings
Over 40 brand-new University of Delaware ocean instruments arrived on the 
Healy when she was loaded in Seattle. We have never opened the boxes ... More 


Log July-11-2003
Passing through the Bermuda Triangle
On our way to St. John's we are passing through the infamous Bermuda Triangle 
between Bermuda, Florida, and Puerto Rico ... More 

Log July-09-2003
Letting a balloon go off Puerto Rico
Today Kevin let go of a balloon height into the atmosphere for a vertical 
profile of the temperature and humidity ... More 

Log July-06-2003
Walking the town and beaches of Curacao
On our Sunday hike through Curacao Dave and I encountered an unexpected 
memorial. It was hidden away near the beach a few yards from... More 



Log July-05-2003
Settling in
David Huntley and Andreas Münchow arrived on the Healy in Curacao of the 
Netherland's Antilles. The Healy had just arrived via the Panama Canal... 
More 

Date     Topic Synopsis for Daily Log
-------  -------------------------------------------------------------------
July 16  Anticipation and last minute preparations
July 18  Description of travel from Portland to St. John’s
July 19  Scientists’ preparation for leaving, including enjoying St. John’s
July 20  More on scientists preparations while anchored in St. John’s
July 21  Description of crew briefing and leaving; first impressions of life 
         on the ship
July 22  Steaming…ship details, size and accommodations
July 23  Water evaporation system on the ship
July 24  Why the Arctic? How CATS meets Science Inquiry model
         Finished short bio on each science crew member
July 25  Preparing for first station: skill of organization
July 26  Ship’s sewage; meticulous collection of water samples from rosette
July 27  Protocol for getting water and preparing samples for storage or 
         analysis
July 28  Sunday: relaxation for crew; work for scientists
         US-Canada-Coast Guard cooperation 
July 29  Helicopter operations to Pond Inlet
July 30  Piston Coring operations
Aug 1    Icebergs underway
Aug 2    Checking your work, having backup data sources, careful data 
         collection
Aug 3    A Four Ring Circus: rosettes, helo ops, mooring, clams
Aug 4    ADCP mooring process
Aug 5    CT mooring process
Aug 6    Helicopter ride up Ellesmere Island’s coast
Aug 7    Inuit History and culture
Aug 8    Interdisciplinary cruise: fields in oceanography
Aug 9    Life on Land: mammals, insects, plants, fish
Aug 10   Sunday: what everyone would be doing in their other life
Aug 11   Boat ops: 6 hours on the water in Healy 3
Aug 12   A packing list for CATS 2003-Whew!!
Aug 13   Mammals in the sea: whales, narwhal, seals, walrus
Aug 14   Life skills of a scientist
Aug 15   Trip summary


Date     Topic Summary for Fun Facts Page
-------  ------------------------------------------
July 25  Eating on the Healy…a cornucopia
July 27  Ship’s vocabulary…words you gotta know!
July 29  Helicopter facts
July 30  Hotel Healy: rules for being a good guest
Aug 1    Iceberg facts
Aug 5    Sea Ice facts
Aug 7    Life in Grise Fiord
Aug 11   Number One: life as chief scientist
Aug 13   ARTic…art from the crew 


Daily Log summary, Bob McCarthy

July 20:   Last day in St. John’s and hiking up Signal Hill, plus a little 
           history about Signal Hill.

July 21:   Definition of a knot, problem to calculate the earth’s 
           circumference, and ship procedures

July 22:   How fog is formed, answer to circumference of the earth, and new 
           problem about ship’s fuel capacity.

July 23:   First iceberg sighting, and calculation of amount of freshwater it 
           contained.  Also how the ship makes freshwater from seawater.

July 24:   Wind generating waves;  time, strength, or fetch limited, and 
           Labrador current evidence from ADCP.

July 25:   Decorating Styrofoam cups, definition of pressure, and calculation 
           of hydrostatic pressure.

July 26:   Definition of power and calculations involving the stationary bike 
           trainers.  Also showed the results of 242 atmospheres of pressure 
           can do to Styrofoam cups.

July 27:   Acoustic releases, and how they work and why two are better than 
           one

July 28:   Thank you note to everybody involved, and my first of the 
           remaining nights working the 15:30-23:30 shift watching computers.

July 29:   How piston cores work, and rotational equilibrium and torque 
           calculations.

July 30:   About Lee Narraway, and how fog bows are produced.

July 31:   Lee Narraway’s talk about taking better pictures, and how cameras 
           work.

August 1:  How Chip and Jason use electricity in a coil of wire to set up a 
           magnetic field so they can analyze their core samples.

August 2:  Diving into the frigid waters and how regulators work.

August 3:  The dive heroes, and why the pressure sensors are needed to help 
           the physical oceanographers determine the driving forces for the 
           flow through Nares Straight.

August 4:  Finally arriving at the mooring line in Nares Straight, and 
           breaking through ice, and what controls the strength of the ice.

August 5:  Messages placed on the floats for the moorings, and why the 
           moorings are an important contribution to this research cruise.

August 6:  My helicopter ride, and how helicopters create lift.

August 7:  The purpose for diving for clams, and calculating the dive time 
           based on the depth the diver is at.

August 8:  Sea Beam mapping the oceans versus the old way the Challenger 
           used.

August 9:  How light is transmitted through the water column, and how plants 
           that depend on light for life are adapted to receive the most 
           available light reaching them.

August 10: Morale night

August 11: Gerhard’s and my small boat excursion to Off ey Island.

August 12: Lauren and Melissa’s small boat excursion to Scoresby Bay

August 13: Stokes’s Law, and how that is used to determine the depth on an 
           XBT cast.



CHIEF SCIENTIST LOG


CHIEF SCIENTIST'S LOG

16July03  
Arrived 11:55 pm at St. John’s airport.  Connections were smooth although 
short (45 min) between Newark and Halifax.  Continental did not recognize 
Canjet and so did not check my luggage through to St. John’s.  In Halifax I 
had to go through customs, retrieve my baggage and walk to the other end of 
the airport to check in with Canjet.  I then had to proceed back through 
security.  Fortunately there was enough time to do this and I made the flight 
with all my baggage.  It was hot and muggy in St. John’s.

17July03  
Took cab to Irving Pier fueling dock on the south side of St. John’s harbor.  
The security gate was locked when the cab drove up but some young Coast Guard 
fellows were leaving and I slipped in. Upon boarding the ship, I was stopped 
on the quarterdeck and asked who I was.  When I gave my name I was told that 
no berthing was available for the science party until July 19.  Upon 
producing the e-mail from XO Bill Rall indicating that my stateroom as chief 
scientist was ready for my arrival, I was allowed to pass.  Although off-
duty, EM2 Ben Garrett graciously offered to haul my bag up to my stateroom.  
He was reluctant to give me his name but he did mention “Garrett”.  I tracked 
down his full name later in order to give him a token of appreciation.  I 
spent much of the day setting up in my stateroom and assuring that our gear 
that the Canadian Coast Guard was sheparding got put on board in a sensible 
place.  All gear was accounted for and secured from the weather by late 
afternoon.  The MST's, Dave Huntley and Andreas Muenchow all assisted in that 
activity.  The Executive Officer (XO) Bill Rall arranged for a call to 
Atlantis International (the husbanding agent used by OSU) and let them know 
that shipments to the Healy would be accepted.  I received calls from the CBC 
radio folks and agreed to give an interview the next morning at 7 am.  The XO 
volunteered that I could make use of the 2 liberty vans hired by the ship 
while in port.  I worked out a plan based on everyone’s itineraries to 
retrieve folks from the airport over the next few days using the vans when 
they weren't otherwise booked.  I hadn't anticipated this option but it 
proved to be expedient and much appreciated.  I was warned that berthing for 
the incoming science party while in port would be temporary in part since 
there were extra folks remaining on board to take care of the generator 
repair and other such things.  That evening Dave Huntley, Dale Chayes, Don, 
Andreas Muenchow, Kevin (of Peter Minnet’s group) and myself had a nice 
dinner at Milou’s in St. John’s.  I used Dave’s cell phone to call my 
husband.  I told him of my safe arrival and to call my chief technician 
because  I needed the software code for my Microsoft package  and a few other 
things.  Chi returned the call while we were in the restaurant.  She relayed 
what I needed and found my Arctic Crossing certificate, which she intends to 
bring along with her.  Dramatic thunder-shower activity occurred during the 
night.

18July03 
Another uncharacteristically hot humid day in St. John’s that started off 
rainy.  At 7 am Andreas and I arrived at the brow to discover that a cab that 
had been sent for us from CBC had waited from 6:30 to 6:50 am and then taken 
off.  The driver never exited the vehicle.  CBC called the quarterdeck while 
we were standing there and they sent another cab.  Someone met us at the door 
and brought us to the studio where we broadcast a 5-minute live interview.  
Afterwards, I returned a call from the CBC television people.  We agreed to 
an interview at noon.  Joe Digiovanni then networked my computer and I 
attempted to send messages to folks back home informing them that we were at 
Pier 17.  Just after lunch, Monica Kidd and a cameraman from CBC TV showed up 
and interviewed Andreas and I on the bridge and helo deck.  I then took off 
for town, bought steel-toed boots, books for the kids, some cereal and went 
to the post office and took care of my e-mail home account from there.  On 
the way back to the ship I ran into Dennis Bogle, the principal of the school 
in Grise Fiord and we agreed to meet for dinner at the Indian restaurant.  He 
was in town to attend a wedding of two of his teachers.  I ran into the 
ship’s liberty van on the way back to the ship and they took me to a grocery 
store where I picked up a few items. When I arrived back at the ship, the 
captain informed me of the ship’s wetting-down ceremony to take place at the 
Crow’s Nest in St. John's that evening.  Five of the officers and crew were 
promoted and by tradition put on a party with drinks and eats for the ship's 
crew.  I also learned that our gear from Atlantis International arrived and I 
checked that it was all accounted for.  When I headed into town to meet 
Dennis, Andreas and Dave and I crossed paths and we went for dinner together.  
After dinner, we parted with Dennis and went to the Crow’s Nest where I met a 
large number of the Healy crew.  At 10:30 pm, I headed back to the ship to 
accompany the liberty van to the airport to pick up scientists coming in.  
When I arrived at the ship, both vans had already set off for the airport.  I 
then had a cab called and arrived just in advance of folks coming in.  The 
first flight had been delayed but eventually Humfrey, Ron, Chi, Pete K., 
Chris, Dale and Jay arrived.  Ed Hudson was at the airport to greet Humfrey 
so I met him and his wife there.  Jay’s bag did not arrive so he filed a 
report and left his keys with Air Canada for customs.  The vans went back to 
the ship with all but Chi right about when Joe and Scott arrived.  We then 
waited for the van to return and pick us up.  Although berthing arrangements 
were temporary for most, everyone settled into their staterooms ok.

19July03  
I awoke early and found several folks had managed to muster for breakfast.  I 
met with people in the science conference room at 12 noon to go over some 
ship rules and help get people going on science gear set-up.  I continued to 
try to get e-mail off board without much success initially either through 
INMARSAT or Iridium systems.  I spent considerable time working out lab space 
allotment.  Fortunately everyone is being good natured about accommodating 
each others needs.  We confirmed that Humfrey’s air shipment arrived and was 
all accounted for.  Midday I went to the airport in the liberty van to pick 
up Kumiko, Lee, Dave Forcucci and Helga.  I determined that Helga had missed 
her connection but managed to identify and collect Kumiko, Lee and Dave.  We 
brought them back to the ship and got them to their staterooms.  Chip and 
Jason managed to get to the ship on their own via taxi.  Humfrey arranged 
with Ed Hudson to pick up Pauloosie at the airport.  Dave went to retrieve 
the UDel girls, Melissa, Lauren and Elinor as well as Helga and Helen and 
Pete G.  It took two liberty van trips.  Melissa was missing her baggage so 
filed a report.  John Harris made it to the ship on his own (I never did get 
a copy of his itinerary).  In the meanwhile we worked on tracking Jay’s bag 
by borrowing the ship’s cell phones.  The officers on board were very helpful 
in allowing me to borrow their phones for such.  Upon arrival, Pauloosie 
informed me that he left his passport in Grise Fiord and that he needed to 
acquire some financial assistance paperwork for school via fax.  Humfrey and 
I told him that we would sleep on it and come up with solutions in a day or 
so.  

20July03 
I called a science meeting just after breakfast (10 am) and updated the new 
arrivals on ship’s rules.  Dennis Bogle and Pauloosie came in together.  
Melissa received her baggage in the morning.  We created a sign up list for 
people requesting lap top connections and gave it to Joe to begin working on.  
After meeting we dispersed to science spaces and continued to work on set-up.  
I located the sound system for Scott and Chi to use in the climate control 
chamber.  I requested that the climate control chamber, freezer and fridge be 
turned on.  I was informed that they would not be turned on until we were 
underway.  Since we have nearly 5 days before beginning science operations, 
this is actually ok.  There was some concern that this need had not been 
expressed to the ship ahead of time.  I had discussed it with the marine 
science officer but I had not put it in the cruise planning form.  I came 
close to losing my temper on this.  Ed Hudson and Yves Sivret showed up and 
were shown their accommodations.  I discussed the passport situation with 
Humfrey and XO Rall.  We came up with a plan to have Dale Chayes hand-carry 
Pauloosie’s passport to Thule.  I called Pauloosie’s parents to explain the 
hand off situation for the passport.  They assured me that they would follow 
through and send it to Dale in New York.  I left Dale with contact info for 
Pauloosie’s parents.  I discussed the fax situation with IT1 Steve Chipman.  
This was virtually impossible from the ship while in port and so I determined 
that Pauloosie would work with Digiovanni and use other electronic means to 
accomplish his financial aid paperwork.  Pauloosie in the meanwhile was in 
town with Dennis Bogle.  Jay received his bag.  After having to traipse back 
to the airport to retrieve his baggage keys, his situation was finally 
resolved.  At 2 pm, IT1 Chipman distributed pagers for the science party who 
were onboard.  A seawater coolant line in the backup generator room broke 
sending a flood into the athwartships passageway on the 03(?) level.  Humfrey 
and I happened to spot the water leaking through the doorway grill and 
notified Coast Guard personnel.  Unfortunately St. John's has yet to put a 
sewage treatment plant on line and so the harbor water isn't very clean.  It 
was a messy unexpected job for a host of Coast Guard folks who toiled 
diligently and got the situation under control.  I ended up with just enough 
time at the end of the day to eat on the ship and then get off for a walk up 
to Signal Hill with Ed Hudson and Humfrey Melling.  From the top of the hill 
we could see the Canadian Coast Guard ship Hudson making her way into the 
narrows.  We also went around to Quide Vide Harbor and made it back to the 
ship in time to watch the Hudson tie up behind the Healy at Pier 17.  Kumiko 
had invited Allyn Clarke and several other BIO folks on board.  We all met up 
on the helo deck and chatted briefly and then I turned in.

21July03
Up at 6 am to exercise with Gerhard, Robert, Joe and Lee.  Breakfast at 7 and 
science meeting at 8.  Also did laundry.  Some of the remaining scientists 
received their pagers.  I told scientists not to go on fantail or folksail 
because lines were being laid out.  The anticipated pilot boat didn’t show at 
9am.  They initially rescheduled for 1:30 pm and we requested a waiver to 
exit the harbor unaccompanied.  They got back to us and got us out on a 10 am 
departure.  About two hours later we took on the second helo that had been at 
the airport for convenience of conducting flight practice while we had been 
in port.  At noon we had a ship’s briefing.  Pauloosie did not attend due to 
seasickness.  I had already informed the ship’s nurse that she might  expect 
him to show up in sickbay but when I saw her before the briefing, I requested 
that she bring the patch to his room.  We then went through an abandon ship 
and man overboard drill.  In conversing with Chris and then the URI guys I 
also learned that the URI folks hadn’t been able to look at the seismics in 
the targeted region of the coring off Bylot Island.  I requested that they 
attempt to communicate with Kate regarding the best available information for 
the area that we would attempt to core in.  I learned of plans for the deck 
space by the mooring group by happenstance and so called a meeting with 
Humfrey to establish better communications.  We called the coring folks in 
and discussed plans for the deck.  There appeared to be no problem in 
proceeding with the mooring layout as intended.  Humfrey agreed to keep me 
better informed in aid of my coordination duties.  I went to the captain’s 
cabin for the first of regular evening briefings.  Glen H. gave the weather 
and I learned of plans from the officers regarding ship activities. We have 
three engines running and are doing about 18 kts.  I gave Coast Guard folks a 
heads up on testing the acoustic releases and deck testing the CTD-rosette 
unit with all sensors and pumps running.  Earlier in the day, the science 
party and MST's determined that the best way to test the releases was to 
mount them on a CTD rosette frame, lower them and query them using a 
hydrophone from the fantail in groups of 7.  Not all could be queried 
simultaneously due to frequency overlaps.  (For the shallow -rated pressure 
sensors, we would lower the frame aft and query them from a small boat away 
from the vessel.)  I asked to get a clarification on the voice communications 
available to the science party on board.  They could not give me a clear 
answer and elected to do some homework and get back to me.  They gave me a 
copy of the St. John's Express article that consisted of an interview of 
Humfrey Melling.  It started off with a quite condemning paragraph quoting 
Humfrey.  He remarked upon how ugly the ship is!  When Humfrey was informed 
of it, he was quite chagrined by the hand of the media.

22July03
I woke early and exercised again with Gerhard, Robert and Lee.  Weather 
continues to be good.  Today I began a daily meeting routine of attending the 
officers' call to quarters at 12:25 pm in the officers' lounge, followed by 
the general call to quarters on the helo deck at 12:30 pm.  At 4:30 pm, I 
hold a science meeting in the science lounge.  At 6:30 pm, I attend the 
Captain's briefing (that was held in the officers' lounge throughout the bulk 
of the cruise).  The event of this day was to learn that 7 custom made cables 
that were ordered through RDI had not made their way into the ADCP boxes.  
Humfrey had tested and approved of the prototype and that is the only one on 
board.  Initial calls to RDI by Dave Huntley didn’t reveal the whereabouts of 
the cables.  This is a show-stopper.  Earlier in the day, Humfrey plotted up 
the stations using my cruise planning spreadsheet.  We discovered large 
errors in the coring locations and I requested the URI folks to give me 
updated coordinates.  By the end of the day, they produced revised 
coordinates.  Everyone is very busy setting up gear in the lab spaces.  Jay 
mounted ZAPS and is helping the mooring group.  We conducted a daily science 
meeting in the science conference room.  (These meetings occurred all but 1 
day on the ship for the duration of the cruise.,  I started the practice of 
passing around a roster sheet for folks to initial to indicate their presence 
on the vessel.  I tape this to the bulkhead and ENS Cooley picks it up.  I 
asked Ed Hudson to start a quote of the day duty.  I started it off with 
reading the quote from Humfrey in the Express and a quote of Dave Forcucci 
“There is no accountability on this ship” and Andreas’s radio interview 
comment taken out of context that “…In fact I think all of physics is 
trivial”.  The MST’s (primarily Glen Hendrickson) and MSO (Neal Amaral) 
“briefed” the science party in the science lounge.  Around mid-day we 
suddenly went dead in the water and had a power outage.  At the captain’s 
briefing I learned that valves on the supply side of seawater cooling systems 
for the main engines had been inadvertently shut off and the engines were 
tripped by overheating conditions.  Earlier in the day the captain had called 
me to apologize for the snafu.  I told him that I didn’t view the situation 
as something they had done “to us”.  He felt differently and made it clear 
that mistakes such as that were unacceptable.  We explained the situation 
with the cables at the captain’s briefing to the officers.  Humfrey began 
accompanying me to the briefings.  I was given a double-sided 1-page set of 
instructions for making phone calls.  The sheet included information on 
costs.  Later (8 pm) I gave a 20-minute overview of our project to the ship’s 
crew and officers in the galley.  I estimate that 50 people attended 
including about 10 of the science party.  In addition to summarizing the 
science program, I invited folks to decorate styrofoam cups.  I introduced 
the teachers and Lee and Pauloosie.  It went quite well and folks lingered 
and talked to the available science party for quite some time after.  I 
suggested that one of our party (Humfrey) quoted in the press for his 
denigrating remarks on the ship’s appearance would like to wear the WAGB cap 
since it stood for “What a Gorgeous Boat”.  

23 July03
I didn’t awake early today but managed to slip my exercise in during 
breakfast time.  Early in the day, we learned that the cables were in fact at 
RDI and that they were intending to send them to us in Pond Inlet.  We 
suggested that they send someone with them to make sure that they got through 
customs in Canada and ideally accompany them all the way to Pond Inlet.  
Networking is nearly completed for all of the science party.  E-mail bounce 
backs are a common problem.  Joe D. is working on trying to solve that issue.  
At the moment my connections seem to be working.  We deck tested the CTD-
rosette and things appear to be in working order for all sensors.  With 
Andreas and Roger Davis, a schedule of watch standers was devised to begin 
tomorrow morning.  Melissa, Helga, Helen, Dave, Lauren and Elinor are all 
involved.  There was some confusion on the teachers' part regarding their 
role in the technicalities of posting web entries and editing the existing 
material.  They were instructed to focus primarily on producing the primary 
material and to compile a list of edits for someone else to implement.  One 
of the undergraduates from UDel, Lauren, with occasional help from Joe 
Dogiovanni took on the responsibility of tidying up the teachers' input, 
rendering it into html and posting it.  This proved to be a highly fruitful 
division of labor.  We were fortunate to have Lauren on board because she 
wasn't originally scheduled to sail with us.  Ed Hudson gave the quotes of 
the day in good humor and I asked him to give the science party a daily 
weather briefing. He gives a lively presentation! and has a knack for finding 
the humor in most any situation without being mean. Pauloosie (with 
encouragement and assistance from Lee) announced that he would be giving us a 
few Inuktitut words per day as part of the science meeting.


24Jul03
Andreas and Robie both expressed interest in thermosalinograph data.  I had 
not expected to be in so much open water and had not planned on making 
extensive use of the system but they pointed out that we were crossing major 
frontal features on our track that would be worth recording.  We made 
provisions to archive the sensor data.  Robie instituted a watch standing for 
taking surface samples from the thermosalinograph system.   The watch 
standers integrated this into their routine.  Robie gave a clams presentation 
to interested folks in the science and ship's crews.  This was well received 
and the ensuing discussion raised a number of worthy practical and scientific 
issues.  (Note:  From this time forward, I found it extremely difficult to 
find time to type in notes on a daily basis.  Because I was traveling all 
over the ship, I ended up carrying my notebook with me and scratching notes 
when I could.  The subsequent notes are digitized forms of these notes.  I 
must apologize to cruise participants for failing to record a number of 
important events.  I suppose I should get with the palm pilot generation.)  I 
happily managed to purchase some espresso type coffee from the JavaHut for 
the first time today (and most days after).  Ahhh, the creature comforts to 
titrate this hectic pace.  Pauloosie has followed through on his promise to 
teach us some Inuktitut at the science  meeting.  Yves Sivret, our Canadian 
Ice Technician, is giving reports at the science meeting when there is 
interesting news to relate.

25-26Jul03
Dave Forcucci gave me a copy of the XCTD deployment plan and as he warned me 
yesterday, indeed I failed to deploy some of them intended for Davis St. and 
south.  Arghhhhh.  I missed taking notes in this period due to intensive CTD-
rosette operations.  Much of what occurred can be gleaned from the CTD-
rosette hydrography section of the cruise.  I note that Humfrey, Robie and I 
generally shared oversight of the rosette casts.  Andreas, Melissa, Helga and 
Helen also contributed substantially when not on watch for other activities.  
The MST's were generally quite dedicated in readying the rosette for 
deployment and running the winch.  Ultimately they spent many long hours 
troubleshooting the equipment as well.  Dave Forcucci had to drop out of the 
ADCP/Seabeam watch and Joe Digiovanni volunteered to pitch in.  Robert 
McCarthy also ended up being a significant contributor to that mission.  Pete 
Gamble had a birthday on July 26.  His was the only birthday of the science 
party that occurred during the mission.  Lee Narraway made a spectacular cake 
for him with help from the kitchen staff.  This was served to him with the 
appropriate song at dinner.  While he wished to have no recognition, we 
couldn't help but honor the birthday of the oldest person on the ship!  Hail 
to Pete the Elder.  The science party reports that the damage control folks 
have been extremely helpful with respect to their requests for fabricating 
parts to aid with the camera operation for the clams, the shallow mooring 
anchoring system and other items.  Pete Gamble has been helpful to the DC 
folks in repairing some of their machinery before he made use of it.  I asked 
that folks let me know of such requests in advance and be sure and thank ship 
personnel for any help rendered.  I also encouraged science party personnel 
to write up their recognition of meritorious service and cc supervisors when 
appropriate.  Pauloosie volunteered to give a presentation on the founding of 
Nunavut sometime in the next few days.  Chris Moser aptly ran one of the 
science meetings on my behalf.  I learned via e-mail that our plan for 
placing all preliminary hydrographic data on the public drive did not sit 
well with the co-PI in charge of CFC data and so made an arrangement that 
only I be able to have access to the merged CFC data.

27Jul03 
The grueling CTD-rosette operation ended and we set a course for the Seabeam 
and sub bottom profiler operation to run overnight.  We hope to send both 
helos into Pond inlet tomorrow for the cables.  In anticipation that the 
teachers might ride, they attended a helo safety brief and the helo brief on 
the bridge.  We've been on board for a week and common science spaces were in 
need of cleaning and trash disposal is an issue.  I decided to clean the 
common spaces (clean the heads, sweep the labs) and Joe and Jay pitched in.  
Ed Hudson volunteered to roundup a team of scientists for incineration 
training that included the teachers and the younger coring team.  Although 
they became certified, the incinerator was down so often that in the end we 
simply brought trash to the incinerator room and burnables were taken care of 
for us by Coast Guard folks.

28Jul03
We successfully ran a pattern over the shelf using Seabeam and the sub bottom 
profiler to survey the coring area.  No dramatic contraindications for coring 
appeared although there is a trough between stations 3 and 4 that we will 
avoid.  The first helo had a switch malfunction and had to return to the 
ship.  The second was used instead to take 4 Coast Guard folks to Pond Inlet.  
This meant that the teachers did not get a chance to ride.  One of the Coast 
Guard personnel unfortunately had to return home for his mother’s funeral.  
The other helo operators met Eric Hawes of RDI and retrieved the 7 cables 
from him.  I got these from the helo deck once they arrived and brought them 
to Ron Lindsay who confirmed that they were what we needed.  Crisis averted!  
An intensive piston coring effort began.  Pauloosie pitched in with the 
coring and was extremely helpful through the entire process.  I kept watch on 
the team throughout the process to be sure that we weren't pushing the 
fatigue limits.  Thoughts of losing the equipment were a bit nerve-wracking 
as the wind speed picked up to over 30 kts at intervals.  Fortunately ship 
station keeping seems to be improving as our demands increase.  I received 
the following message from Andreas: 

Kelly,

Both our original proposal and the justification to use the Healy for the 
present expedition called for specifically designed ADCP/CTD surveys to 
investigate the spatial and temporal variability of currents in northern 
Baffin Bay and Nares Strait. Please note that the present operations do NOT 
contribute to this goal in any way. It is a very common misconception that 
transit lines and ship tracks designed for other operations (like the current 
19 hour SeaBeam survey) will yield physically meaningful ADCP velocity 
observations. I feel that this misconception may prevent us from achieving 
some of the science goals of our proposal.

In order to conduct physically meaningful ADCP surveys I will need 3 days of 
dedicated survey time that I want to allocate as follows:

1. ~24 hours of transect repetitions in Smith Sound to resolve both semi-
   diurnal (~50 cm/s) and diurnal (15 cm/s) tidal currents to get a snapshot 
   of the subtidal spatial variability of the outflow from Kane Basin;

2. ~24 hours of transect repetitions in southern Kennedy Channel to resolve 
   tidal currents and get a snapshot of spatial variability of the outflow 
   from Kennedy Channel; and

3. ~24 hours of transect repetition in northern Kennedy Channel to resolve 
   tidal currents and get a snapshot of spatial variability of the outflow 
   from Hall Basin.

Each of the above channels is about 25 nm wide, hence a crossing at 10-12 kts 
may take 3 hours. I am planning to take a single (internally recording) CTD 
cast over the center (and endpoints, time permitting) of the channel during 
each of 6 crossings to extend thermosalinograph observations from the surface 
into the water column.

I furthermore advocate ship tracks that cross topographic features and would 
like to be included in the planning of survey and transit lines. This will 
allow me to optimize ADCP sampling strategies that may contribute to 
meaningful ADCP/CTD surveys.

andreas

P.S.: I would not make this request without knowing that we have a functional 
ADCP with a bottom tracking range exceeding 900-m and a water tracking range 
approaching 500-m.  No other ship with these capabilities has ever been in 
this area and we ought to take better advantage of it than we are doing right 
now.


29Jul03
Coring continued through to about 1:30 pm.  At that point the coring team was 
clearly fatigued and so we took a break until 7 pm.  The bow thruster was 
further tested and a blown fuse discovered.  Upon talking with andreas in the 
night, the captain ordered us on a cross shelf course while we bided time for 
the coring break.  The galley put up dinners for 6 scientists.  Deck work for 
coring began again at 8 pm under very calm conditions. Winds were extremely 
light.  Station keeping by the ship was excellent.  Andreas approached me 
about wasting time on further deep Baffin bay ctd-rosette surveys.  He’s 
convinced that the stations in the deep basin are a waste of time and that 
all the variability is at the slope.  He views the deep stations on the ns 
line to be excessive and come at the expense of his ADCP time.  I countered 
that data for the deep part of Baffin bay was very limited.  He is concerned 
that his interests are being marginalized.  I suggested that we focus efforts 
for ADCP work further north in conjunction with the mooring work and that 
Humphrey, he and I meet for planning purposes after the ns-ctd-rosette line 
was completed.  Jay, Dave, Helen and Helga, under the guidance of Pete gamble 
and Humphrey, having been working extremely hard to assemble the moorings.  
Folks like marry, Ed, Lee and Pauloosie have pitched in with some of the line 
work.  The main team managed to complete preparations of the ADCP moorings.  
Scott continued work on the salinometer; we had a minor malfunction with the 
flushing mechanism that I managed to fix.  Joe, dale and john finished 
analyses and assembly of data for merger into the main data spreadsheet.  
Mary and chi worked hard on getting the ctd-rosette data in shape to view the 
sections.  Somewhat miraculously, this was nearly completed, when we all 
turned in for the night.  Rob, marry and I viewed the sensor sections using 
ocean data view.  I spoke to the group about having a discussion regarding 
local hydrography for everybody's benefit.  (unfortunately this never 
happened since the science party became too busy to incorporate such an 
evening activity.)  At the captain's brief I learned that a major (large) 
fuse was blown in the bow thruster.  Attempts to obtain a replacement part by 
the time we reach Thule on the way north were not successful.  Attempts to 
arrange for a helicopter switch replacement apparently were successful and we 
will try and pick that up on the way in.  Lee Narraway gave a well-received 
presentation on improving photographic techniques to all interested in the 
science lounge.

30Jul-3Aug03
This is another period in which things got too hectic for much note taking.  
Pauloosie made a Powerpoint presentation on the founding of Nunavut to the 
ship's party that was so well received that he gave a command performance the 
following night.  It allowed those who were on watch the previous time and 
myself to hear it and I concur that it was excellent.  One of the ship's crew 
asked how old Pauloosie was and then commented that he knew no other 18 year 
old who could have given such a wonderful presentation regarding the history 
of his people and culture.  The CTD-rosette operation was intensive once 
again.  We did note an interesting bottom boundary layer that as far as we 
know has yet to be described for deep Baffin Bay.  Andreas produced a plot of 
available data for Baffin Bay that illustrates that this layer had not been 
sampled but once or twice previously.  We attempted to use the internally 
recording CTD to supplement station spacing over the shelf but needed to sort 
out some data recording issues for the instrument.  As we neared the end of 
the line, Andreas, Humfrey and I met to discuss how best to use the time as 
we passed near Thule.  Since the Coast Guard needed to fly in for helo parts, 
it seemed we did need to loiter in the region.  Andreas designed an ADCP-
oriented survey designed to check for the presence of a northward flowing 
freshwater coastal current along the coast near Thule.  This entailed CTD 
drops at the end of cross-shelf spokes.  Some of these were accomplished with 
the internally recording CTD but it proved to be preferable to use the CTD-
rosette package since the data real-time, quality was better and the sensor 
array better.  The helo parts were successfully retrieved during this 
timeframe.  The CTD-rosette water samplers used the time to catch up on 
analyses.  Joe Digiovanni set up space on a public drive for us to exchange 
data.  This proved to be extremely useful.  Helen Johnson was designated the 
science party morale leader.  A set of briefs regarding the use of the small 
boat and divers was conducted.  We then headed north to complete a hydro 
section across Smith Sound.  Fortunately ice was minimal there expediting our 
section.  We then made our first attempt at retrieving clams and deploying a 
shallow pressure sensor using divers on the eastern side of Smith Sound.  A 
big clam was retrieved and the mooring was deployed.  We adjusted our 
approach based on this experience.  We made a helo based reconnaissance of 
Alexandra Fiord and things looked good to go for doing dive ops there.  In 
fact when we arrived the ice had moved in making small boat ops impossible.  
Not knowing when and if the ice would clear, we made the decision to head 
north to the main mooring array.  Given the transit times, it made sense to 
lay out a track that involved crossing the channel at the sight of the main 
array twice to do Seabeam/ADCP surveying.  The initial pass with Seabeam 
would be useful for checking target mooring site depths.  August 4 was Coast 
Guard Day celebrating the founding of the US Coast Guard.  Lee Narraway made 
another terrific sheet cake in honor of the occasion.  The crew was on 
holiday routine and the cake was shared at dinner on the 4th.  I asked the 
science party to look after cleaning up.  Joe Jennings valiantly took care of 
cleaning shared science heads.  Our Inuktitut word for the day means iceberg 
and phonetically sounded like "pick-a-lu-yuk".   Rob Macdonald pointed out 
that my call for cleaning provided the perfect mnemonic.  During this period, 
Lee Narraway ran one of the science meetings on my behalf.

4Aug03
I awoke at about 6:30am and noted that we were headed for ice to the eastern 
side of Kennedy Channel towards Cape Jefferson.  This ice was a 
conglomeration of multi-year and first year ice pans with scattered bergs and 
slowed us down considerably.  Upon entering the ice, Seabeam data drops out.  
Toward the very eastern part of the targeted section (KS15) the water is 
clear of ice.  The captain and master chief were driving in the loft conning 
station for the first time on the mission.  We reached the target station 
(KS15) in about 120 m of water and only 1.3 nm from the land.  Seabeam 
recorded well once again in the open stretch.  Andreas came in to report a 
strong current at the ice edge.  He didn't know whether what he was seeing 
was real or an artifact and was agitated.  At about 7:15am, the captain 
descended from the loft con and we discussed how to proceed.  Given the 
relatively long transit time to break the ice in the channel, it appears most 
expedient to forgo the transit back across for the ADCP/Seabeam survey and to 
begin the deployment at this end of the line.  Moreover the deck folks and 
the MST''s and the scientists were standing by to be ready to go at 8:00 just 
after breakfast.  The captain gave the orders and I went down to the galley 
for juice and oatmeal.  Upon finishing was approached by Andreas who asked to 
speak to me in private.  We went to the chief scientist's conference room and 
he once again expressed frustration with not being included in the decision 
making process (i.e. not taking the Seabeam/ADCP track back across channel).  
He also expressed consternation at not knowing whether the phenomenon of a 2 
kt apparent current that he observed in the ice was an artifact or real.  He 
was wondering if the cross channel wind gradient is driving an across channel 
flow.  He mentioned that the strength of this apparent current matched that 
observed off Pt. Conception.  He implied that a return transit would have 
allowed him to determine whether these observations were real or not.  I told 
him that we needed to take advantage of the available weather/ice conditions 
to accomplish our main priority of getting the moorings in.  We agreed that 
he would keep an eye on the ADCP as we transited back of the area while 
deploying the moorings.  That transit, albeit punctuated, should serve as a 
test of how persistent the observed phenomena are.  I told him I would try 
work harder to keep him better informed of decisions that needed to be made.  
Finally I noted that I had observed momentary differences between speed over 
ground and way speed of up to 3 kts when we were breaking ridged ice.  This 
would suggest that the ADCP data might be prone to artifacts while breaking 
ice and I would continue to try and evaluate that in relation to his 
observations.

We began the mooring deployment with the ADCP style moorings at KS14.  
Conditions were such that we were able to do anchor last deployments for all 
of the moorings although the exact approach to do this depended upon the wind 
and local ice situation.  We decided to deploy all the ADCP moorings first as 
they were laid out on the deck and ready to go.  KS12 was located in the 
middle of thick ice and after a few hours of difficult going we abandoned 
that station and continued to KS10, which was in open water.  While the ship 
was negotiating the ice, we took advantage of the time to do testing of the 
Kevlar line.  I remained on the bridge for most of the mooring deployment 
operation in order to hand record the time and locations and depths when the 
moorings were cut away based on the aft A-frame camera monitor.  The ship 
watch standers were ordered to mark depth and position for the moorings.  I 
also took time and position readings from the ship's VMS (voyage management 
system) and the depths from Seabeam based on the centerline readout on the 
screen located on the bridge.  I felt it necessary to remain on the bridge 
because early on I noticed and corrected incorrect positions entered into the 
VMS for the moorings and answered questions at the change of the watch 
regarding science operations.  Ship handling during these deployments was 
quite challenging due to conspiring wind and ice.  We had to be careful not 
to let ice drift down on the line paid out because it would have severed the 
mooring.  We generally wanted to make way slowly and pay equipment out so 
that when we arrive on station the anchor was placed in the water and the 
securing line cut away.  Maintaining headway required a minimal 2 kts.  Much 
above that put too much tension on the lines for the deck crew to handle the 
manually deployed sections.  The various ship operators rose to the occasion 
with different approaches.

At one point, the VMS position was overlaid by a navigational window for ship 
driver purposes and so I switched to recording from the GPS system next to 
the ship's log computer.  At the time I was told that it was echoing the VMS 
though in fact it didn't.  This is the system that the ship's watch standers 
were using to record events.  I then noted when both system readouts were 
available that the positions appeared to be different.  When I tried to find 
out why, a confusing discussion of antenna offsets ensued.  What I eventually 
found out was that the VMS uses the p-code GPS and has an offset correction 
to account for the distance from the antenna to the bridge.  It also is 
referenced to Datum NAD27 (US version).  The other GPS uses Y-code and a 
different antenna.  Andreas was also recording positions from the science 
GPS's and depths from the ADCP.  His times were based on someone from the 
fantail door next to the computer room relaying to him that the moorings had 
been cut away.  (Eventually we compiled all of this information into a single 
spreadsheet.)  To get around the system switch in my notes, I gave the VMS 
times I recorded to the master chief and he extracted the exact positions 
from the VMS logs for me.  I also corresponded with Dale Chayes regarding 
this topic.  He recommended for accuracy using the aft science system GPS and 
noted that the AICC had recommended that a study be conducted to determine 
the exact offsets and compile this information for the ship.  I learned from 
the Captain that someone from Lamont was due to sail the next leg to address 
this issue and the synching of ship and science data streams.

Seabeam centerline readout was somewhat problematic because it tended to drop 
out while we were on station.  It took careful watching to extract reliable 
readings.  Not all watch standers were aware of this.  In these shallow 
straits we had the ADCP as a backup.

When we completed all but KS12, we proceeded to the eastern most part of the 
section in order to conduct a CTD-rosette cast followed by the conductivity-
temp-depth moorings.

Humfrey had to change the position of KS01 because from the initial Seabeam 
survey we had learned that it occurred in waters too shallow.  Roger worked 
with Humfrey to find a spot on the 235 m isobath.  At about 5:30pm ship time, 
the first of the CTD moorings went into the water.  At KS05, the deck unit 
failed in the CTD-rosette.  We brought the unit in for trouble-shooting near 
midnight and proceeded to complete mooring.

5Aug03
Reinitializing the CTD-rosette computer allowed communications to be 
reestablished with the deck unit and a successful CTD-cast was made.  At 
KS11, the CTD-rosette deck unit blew a fuse and so a cast was not made.  The 
trouble was determined to a malfunctioning CTD and so the replacement unit 
was swapped in and configuration files changed.  In the meanwhile we 
proceeded to deploy KS11 CTD-mooring and proceeded to deploy KS12 that had 
been missed on the way over.  Ice conditions were somewhat improved and both 
the science and ship crews benefited from experience.  They were able to 
deploy the mooring anchor last in a very short stretch of open water.  By 
noon we were back to KS11 and managed to conduct a successful CTD-rosette 
cast with the replacement CTD.  Andreas noted that deeper salinities (34.62) 
at this station and the preceding one match Baffin Bay deep water.  We 
discussed whether the change in sensors might affect things but later 
determined the salinity fields from the sensors to be reliable based on the 
bottle salinities.  This is exciting because no one has observed properties 
matching Baffin Bay deep water within the strait before although people have 
speculated that sporadic overflows from Nares St. would explain Baffin Bay 
deepwater properties.

We continued on through to KS15, which turned out to be located in shallow 
waters (109 m) impressively close to the coast.  The very clear air makes 
distant land appear deceivingly close.  Science and Coast Guard crew alike 
were treated to quite spectacular scenery during our operations.

After finishing the main array, we launched the helo for recon.  Upon the 
helo return, we proceeded with the last of the main mooring array, which 
consisted of 2 ice sonars and 1 additional upward looking ADCP.  This 
required some careful sonar work to be sure the targeted sites wouldn't 
result in tangling with the already deployed moorings.  Lee approached me 
about setting up presentations for the science party members interested in 
hearing her photography talk and one to be lead by Chi on sketching.  I told 
her I would try and schedule things but unfortunately I never succeeded to do 
this.

6Aug03
The last of the mooring deployments continued through the wee hours through 
to about 8:30 in the morning.  The exhausted science crew and deck folks took 
a well-deserved break.  We launched the helo again to do ice and clam site 
reconnaissance with Robie and Gerhard on board and headed north.  By about 10 
we had them back on board.  We decided to head to Discovery Bay to deploy a 
shallow-pressure sensor mooring and to retrieve clams.  The coring group 
informed me that they had rigged for gravity cores and were eager to conduct 
gravity coring in the Lincoln Sea or Hall Basin.

7-9August
This is another period in which I didn't take many notes and am relying on 
memory.  We first conducted small boat operations in Discovery Bay.  Pete 
Kalk and Lee Narraway accompanied Humfrey, Robie and Mary for the science 
party.  We ended up needing to launch the rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) 
to ferry gear to the group and so Dave Forcucci also went out on the small 
boat.  Lee spent the majority of the day on shore while the others conducted 
the science from the boat.  When we finished mooring deployment and clam 
retrieval, we then headed north to do a hydrosection and ADCP surveying in 
northern Kennedy Channel.  We conducted cross channel ADCP/Seabeam surveying 
as part of this and tried to do helo recon but had fairly high winds.  It is 
interesting to note that our winds on this cruise have been dominantly out of 
the south.  We have had a few frontal systems pass by but southerly winds 
persist.  This was not expected given the climatology and may explain the 
particular ice conditions we are encountering.  (Note:  This in fact remained 
true throughout our expedition!)  One of the helos needs to have a strut 
repaired.  We talked about going hove to at the Arctic ice edge in the 
Lincoln Sea.  This would give them the opportunity to put the helo on jacks 
and for the crew and science party to get out on the ice.  The northern CTD-
rosette transect across northern Kennedy channel was accomplished.  When we 
approached the Arctic ice pack winds were high enough to result in 
considerable swell in the brash edge.  Unfortunately conditions were not 
suitable for an ice party and so we headed back down into the strait.  It was 
the science party turn to cook on morale night and under the leadership of 
Helen, they rose to the occasion in fine form.  The galley was transformed 
into "Science by the Slice Pizza Hut".  It seemed as though hundreds of 
pizzas were made.  Fried cheese sticks, "poppers"=jalepenos stuffed with 
cream cheese and deep fried in a batter(!) and cream pies rounded out the 
menu.  I pitched in to help serve at Helen's request.  Festivities were 
apparently continued with a host of board games for which the crew was 
invited to science conference room.  I should mention that the food quality 
and choices on the ship have and continue to generate raves from the science 
party. 

10Aug03
After being up much of the night, we've finally located a suitable coring 
spot.  Originally we had targeted 81deg51.552N and 061deg51.132W 798 m based 
on the Seabeam surveying line done earlier.  Upon arrival at that station at 
1:30am, the winds were a sustained 35kts with gusting to 40+kts.  I chose to 
head 21 nm south to a location (81 deg 34.6'N, 063 deg 08.0'W) that looked to 
have deep soundings.  Upon arriving there, Seabeam indicated that we were not 
in the appropriate water depths and then Seabeam crashed.  Glenn H. worked on 
it and eventually it was necessary to rouse Roger who had been up most of the 
night.  We slowed from 8 to 2 kts. Roger optimized the system and we 
increased speed to 5 kts.  We headed toward the west after tracking a 
parallel line back.  The deeper spot on the parallel line looked hummocky on 
the sub-bottom profiler.  Upon heading toward the west, we located the deep 
plain and Chris Moser reported the following target location: 81deg 37.256 ' 
N 063deg 14.823' W at about 812 m.  We attempted to station keep at this 
location but with 25-35 kt winds, it was difficult.  There was no ice in the 
vicinity.  At 7am I sent the coring folks to eat and joined them.  After 
breakfast I returned to the bridge to suggest that we head into Petermann 
Glacier for CTD's and follow that by small boat ops at Off ey Island.  If 
conditions permit, we would return to the coring site in Hall Basin after.  
The captain gave his approval and set up a 3 hr steam to inside the Glacier 
Fiord.  I retired for about three hours at 8:00am.  At about 10:30, the 
bridge called to notify me that we were about 30 minutes to the edge of the 
glacier floating tongue.  Andreas called shortly after that to ask whether I 
knew that bottom depths exceed 800m.  When I arose and went to the bridge, 
Seabeam depths were in excess of 1000 m.  The setting is quite dramatic with 
very steep cliffs to 2000 m above sea level rising on either side of the 
Fiord.  There is over a mile of relief from cliff top to seafloor!  At our 
closest approach to the tongue, we conducted a deep CTD-rosette cast to about 
1000 m.  The deepwater column was quite homogenous in dissolved oxygen, 
fluorometry, temp and salinity.  We had crossed over sill-like features at 
270 m and 360 m coming into the fiord.  Helen and Andreas noted high velocity 
cores propagating over the sill and down to the deeper water in the fiord.  
They requested that we yo-yo the CTD over the sill during small boat ops.  
Andreas presented these findings to the science party at our meeting that 
evening and explained their intentions for the impromptu yo-yoing experiment 
to the larger group.

Upon completing the CTD-rosette cast, the Captain had us follow the ice-
tongue edge from the center of the channel to the north.  We then turned 
parallel to the coast and "mowed" a pattern to observe the bathymetry.  The 
southern side has a wide shallow fan.  An excellent map of the fiord bottom 
bathymetry was produced.  There was no call to quarters as it was Sunday.  We 
had a boat brief at 12:30.  I determined that Humfrey, Helen, Gerhard, Bob 
and Dale should ride and all but Gerhard attended the brief.  The decision 
was made for folks to eat at 17:00 and to launch at 17:30.  We adhered to the 
plan and the boat headed into the bay on the northern side of Off ey Island.  
The river on the mainland facing the bay has a broad shallow delta.  The 
headland just east of the delta is quite steep and a spectacular example of 
geology in action.  The Greenland Ice Sheet is also visible from this vantage 
point.  The Captain is not comfortable leaving sight of the small boat since 
we carry the decompression chamber for the divers so we are unable to proceed 
to the other side of the island to yo-yo the CTD.  The first site attempted 
by the small boat was on too steep a slope to deploy the mooring.  The second 
site was too soft for the mooring stake.  Fortunately for Humfrey and the 
"three divers", the third site was just right.  They crossed the Bay to put 
people off on land to sample the river.  All passengers got off the small 
boat.  What must seem like a short time on the small boat feels 
excruciatingly long for those of us waiting aboard the Healy.  It was noted 
that the bear gun needed to be loaded for future small boat missions.

11Aug03
We reboarded folks at 0:30 am.  Andreas had requested that we do a traverse 
of the so-called sill upon completion of small boat ops.  He had worked with 
Roger and the  existing Seabeam data to learn that the entry is more a saddle 
than a classic sill.  He then would like to return to the topographic high to 
yo-yo for a few hours.

I requested that the bridge figure out how much time it would take to get 
back to the deep Hall Basin site by about 8 am and then allow Andreas and 
Helen to use the remaining available time through the night.  Unfortunately I 
did not relay that clearly to Andreas and he labored under the assumption 
that he had only two hours.  He eventually learned from the bridge there was 
more time (closer to 6 hours), which apparently made it hard for him to 
schedule the watch standers.

At 8 am we conducted 2 successful CTD-rosette casts in deep Hall Basin that 
looked very similar to those in deep Petermann Fiord.  At 11 pm we started 
gravity coring with 10 ft of pipe.  The first core had a 1500 lb pull out 
tension and was completely filled with mud.  We rigged for a 20 ft core but 
then the crane experienced a hydraulic fluid leak.  The ship's crew got right 
onto repairing it but weren't optimistic time-budget wise.  It turned out to 
be less a problem than originally envisioned and we were back at coring at 
16:30.  We got about 15 ft penetration on the 20 ft section but the mud 
apparently washed out but the fingers of the core-catcher not bent back.  
During retrieval, the winch wrapped poorly so was paid out and rewound about 
50 m.  Moreover, at about 20 m to being on board, the wire jumped as the wrap 
on the far side of the winch momentarily snagged it.  It was disappointing to 
have no mud for the effort.  We decided to attribute the empty core barrel to 
having cored in exactly the same spot as the first core and to blame it on 
perfect station keeping by the ship.  We are now headed south to conduct 
small boat operations in Scoresby Bay.  I tagged Kumiko, Helga, Melissa ad 
Lauren to accompany Humfrey in Scoresby Bay.  I had discussions with the 
captain, XO and Ops regarding a bit of tweaking to improve communications 
between us.  Folks are now finishing up water sample analyses, packing up the 
main lab and with Glenn H's help, stowing gear in the hold.  A Russian 
vessel, the Kapitan Khlebnikov, carrying tourists was sighted heading north 
so we broke our science meeting up a bit early to go have a look at her.

12Aug03
Our intended arrival in Scoresby was delayed a few hours by ice at the mouth.  
There is absolutely no wind and the seas are flat calm as we head in to 
anchor.  At 10:50 the anchor was let go.  The chain is marked in shots (10 
fathoms or 60 ft) by white sections.  We've let out 6 shots with a big puff 
of iron powder.  Folks ate lunch and then the boat was launched.  After the 
small boat headed out, the helo took off with Rob and Mary to survey Scoresby 
and further south for clam sites.  We used the rigid hull inflatable boat to 
ferry out Pete Gamble and a new release because the one sent out failed to 
communicate.  Melissa and Lauren returned.  The deployment with the new 
release was successful.  The helo recon showed the best clam spot to be at 
the mouth of Scoresby so we remained at anchor.  Mary, Rob, Elinor and Scott 
went out with for the science party.  The divers were eager to make use of a 
range of elaborate clam retrieval tools that had been fabricated on the ship.  
Many clams were retrieved. Scoresby Bay was eventually bathed in sunshine and 
the winds remained low through most of the operation.  The setting was 
absolutely spectacular.   The divers continue to impress the scientists as 
being hard working and effective and having a wonderful can-do attitude.  On 
board, various parts of the cruise report have been assigned and the science 
party is making headway on a draft.

13Aug03
At 0:30 we recovered the small boat and headed south to Alexandra Fiord.  The 
captain decided upon arrival mid-morning that we wouldn't anchor in the Fiord 
since soundings were inadequate.  We launched the small boat with Mary, 
Robie, Chris Moser and Humfrey comprising the science party.  Winds were 
about 15kts and skies were overcast.  Within 15 minutes of the launch, the 
skies began to clear and white capped waves were appearing toward the shore.  
Moments later the coxswain of the small boat radioed that they were getting 
bounced around.  By that time winds were up to 40-50 kts.  (Andreas later in 
the afternoon produced a graph of the ships anemometer that documented the 
rapidity of these changes.)  The coxswain was advised by the Healy to head 
down wind, get in the lee of the land and hold tight while a plan was made.  
As I was watching the boat with binoculars, several riders appeared to be 
airborne as they bounced over sizeable waves.  With the large sail that the 
Healy presents to wind and the currents in the face of very few soundings, 
our own maneuvering was extremely slow.  The small boat made it into the lee 
of a promontory while we spent the next several hours making the difficult 
way into the nearby fiord to bring the boat back on board.  That fiord 
opening was studded with rock island and ground bergs adding to the 
difficulty.  I spent much of the time in the loft con keeping visual contact 
with the small boat.  Normally when the small boat is brought alongside the 
ship, the personnel climb up a rope ladder to get back on the Healy and then 
the boat is craned onto the ship.  Because the winds remained quite high and 
we risked going aground in the fiord, it was determined that the boat would 
be raised part way with the crane to where people could get off.  What had 
been a 30 to 45 minute operation was reduced to less than 10 minutes by this 
approach.  Once everybody was back on board and the boat secured, the feeling 
of relief aboard the Healy was palpable.  I spent considerable time 
discussing the situation with our meteorologist Ed Hudson trying to get a 
handle on the likelihood of the recurrence of such a wind event.  Later, in 
the galley the captain approached me about trying the operation again the 
next day since time remained in the schedule to do so.  To the best of our 
ability to determine the source of the sudden wind event, it did not appear 
likely to recur.  I was thankful that the captain had been proactive with his 
officers and crew in discussing what to do next.  From what I heard on the 
bridge there was sentiment that no more such operations should take place.  
My asking for a retrial may have met with resistance.  I agreed that it would 
be scientifically optimal to try again.  After I informed folks of that plan, 
I made a much needed retreat to my bunk.

14Aug03
I awoke to find that we had run a Seabeam pattern in the night and that the 
Kapitan Khlebnikov had appeared early morning and headed into the fiord to 
debark part of its party for exploring the vicinity of the research station 
there.  They filled the airwaves with their radio chatter.  Approximately 12 
hours after our failed attempt to do dive ops in Alexandra Fiord we were back 
at it.  In the night the ship had mapped the nearby region via Seabeam.  I 
should note that the ship was driven numerous times to optimize Seabeam 
coverage by using the readout on the bridge.  The officer of the bridge was 
simply told to overlap the edges of the swaths to the best of their abilities 
and this worked quite well.  The deployment of the mooring and clam retrieval 
went quite well but took the full day.  Upon retrieving folks, it was time to 
head south to Thule.  Andreas requested that we take a zig-zag trajectory for 
ADCP purposes so that was plotted and we crossed Smith Sound twice on the way 
home.  While this was going on, folks continued to pack and work on their 
cruise report contributions.

15Aug03
I met with Andreas after breakfast in order to get his feedback on my draft 
cruise report summary.  It relayed largely positive impressions of our 
accomplishments.  What I learned from our lengthy discussion was that he was 
in fact quite disappointed with aspects of the cruise and in particular my 
leadership style.  After pondering his statements, I believe he has some 
valid points and others I disagree with.  There wasn't much time remaining so 
I attempted to take his view into account as I edited my summary words.  
Later in the morning I met with Robie, Humfrey and Andreas to go over the 
debrief questions that Lisa Clough had forwarded to me before we set sail.  
The notes from our discussion of the debrief questions served as the subject 
of a final meeting with the Captain, Executive Officer, Humfrey and myself 
later that afternoon.  In my opinion it was a fruitful meeting and I have 
summarized that discussion in the final section of this report.  From it 
stemmed the actions that we took with Pauloosie regarding putting wastes 
overboard and fishing (see Inuit Participant report) plus a number of 
recommendations. I remained on my feet for over 50 hours straight trying to 
complete a draft of the cruise report to leave aboard the vessel and to pack.  
Many of the science party were able to take advantage of the barge going back 
and forth for liberty leave in Thule for the evening.  With Humfrey's help, I 
passed mooring location and type information to Operations Officer D. 
Peloquin who had volunteered to post this to a website designed to serve as a 
Notice to Mariners for Arctic locations (use navsafety@nima.mil to have info 
posted at http://pollux.nss.nima.mil).  This was newly instituted in March 
2003 and we had agreed that it was in the ship's interest to assure that such 
information was posted properly. (Note:  I was informed by D. Peloquin that 
this was completed 22 Sep 03.)

16Aug03
Just after breakfast, I gave to the captain a copy of our draft cruise 
report.  I also left him a computer memory stick that had been useful in 
passing planning information back and forth.  I received copies of all but 
the Seabeam science  data from Joe Digiovanni who agreed to get the 
information to Dale Chayes who would be chief scientist on the next leg.  
With the exception of Joe Digiovanni, Yves Sivret and Dave Huntley who were 
remaining on board, the science party debarked from the Healy after breakfast 
using a barge.  At shore we were bused up to the airport.  (We had been 
graciously provided bag lunches by the ship upon my request.)  We were 
delayed in departure with the 109th because communications regarding a pallet 
they needed to take back got crossed.  Although we had been ready to depart 
at 10:00, we didn't board until near noon.  We were further delayed after the 
aircraft returned to the hanger area for oil after taxiing to the runway.  
Once airborne, the group alternately slept, ate the lunches and amused 
themselves with reading, word games and composing limericks and the like.  
When we landed in NY, we were detained on the runway almost an hour waiting 
for customs.  In the customs clearing room we learned that we didn't have the 
proper paperwork to ship Humfrey's gear back to Canada, however they let that 
go.  They did detain Helen for not having a proper visa.  This is a new 
requirement that is fallout from 9/11.  Fortunately a similar situation 
earlier in the day had occurred so the necessary phone calls were placed and 
she was released after an hour or so.  Foreign nationals would not be allowed 
to return to the base so our plan of sending Humfrey and Ron off to rent a 
van and come back for their air cargo was foiled.  Instead Chris Moser and I 
did the deed of renting the van from the Albany airport, getting lost getting 
back to the base but eventually making it back to pick up Ed, Pete and 
Humfrey who were waiting with the gear.  The others had taken taxis to their 
hotels and then made their way to a restaurant, the Macaroni Grille, where we 
had made reservations (via my colleague Bob Collier who has relatives in the 
area).  We proceeded directly there and arrived around 10:20pm. Some folks 
departed at that point and so we had a round of good-byes.  We ordered a bit 
of food and more wine and decompressed.  I discreetly took off my steel-toed 
boots and long woolen socks to better enjoy the moment.  Those who stuck 
around enjoyed themselves reading limericks composed on the plane.  We ended 
up shutting down the place but the waiters and waitresses were good humored 
about it.  One in particular really got a kick out of seeing his name written 
in Inuktitut on the paper table covering.  It was both satisfying and hard to 
say good-bye to such a terrific and dedicated group of people.



Debrief Notes


On August 15, 2003, Kelly Falkner, Humfrey Melling, Dave Forcucci, XO Bill 
Rall and CO Dan Oliver met to address the following debrief topics.  Earlier 
in the morning, input had been obtained from Andreas Muenchow and Robie 
Macdonald:

Topics to cover in debrief (modified from Antarctic debrief questions)

1)  How were communications with PACAREA (Dave, April, and Phil) and the ship 
    (CO, XO, MSO, MSTC or MST1) before the cruise? Ways to improve?
        Communications were facilitated by the on-line planning cruise form 
        and hampered by having the ship go south for the Deep Freeze mission. 
        We had one conference call while the ship was south but I think that 
        the most important communications took place informally on board the 
        ship before she headed south.  I had requested the Arctic Survey Boat 
        for our mission and was told by the previous CO that it was 
        unavailable for reasons that remain unclear to me.  I believe that 
        it's larger cabin would have better served our purposes than Healy 3 
        did.

2)  Any environmental or permitting areas that arose during the cruise?  If 
    yes, how smooth did the process(es) go?  From CG side, did the scientists 
    follow procedures to obtain clearances, permits etc.  Suggested 
    improvements?
        Dave Forcucci was instrumental in sheparding through the clearance 
        requests to Canada, Denmark and Greenland.  I thank him for all of 
        his help with that arduous paperwork.  Our native participant noted 
        two items of concern to him while on board.  In Scoresby Bay, the 
        crew was given permission to fish off the ship.  He pointed out in a 
        written summary of his experiences on board that the individuals 
        fishing needed to have licenses.  While nothing was caught, we felt 
        it important to be proactive in addressing this issue as a matter of 
        trust under the Nunavut clearance that had been granted.  The CO 
        wrote an excellent letter of apology for the incident to the Nunavut 
        licensing agent.  Concern was also expressed by our native 
        participant, Pauloosie,  about trash going over the side.  The CO, XO 
        and myself and co-chief scientists directed Pauloosie to the MarPol 
        convention on the guidelines that were being followed by the ship.  
        The practices were described and his questions answered.  We pointed 
        out that if his people had specific concerns, that we certainly would 
        wish to know them.  Pauloosie was thanked by the CO for bringing 
        attention to these matters.  I could not have asked for a better 
        response to these situations!

3)  Logistics/ Cargo- Were the shipments on time?  Were special handling 
    requests met? (Frozen things kept frozen, etc.)
        Things went well in this regard.  I would recommend that science 
        parties shipping gear should be advised to meet the ship earlier 
        rather than later during a port call in order to take care of 
        deliveries. 

4)  Construction- Was anything built or modified on board?  How did that go?  
    Damage Control/ scientist interactions?
        We had several items built on board ranging from a work table in the 
        aft staging area, to a davit for the underwater camera to stakes for 
        anchoring the shallow moorings. A positive working relationship was 
        established under the leadership of DCC Schaffner.  The scientists 
        were quite happy with the services rendered.  Pete Gamble of the 
        science part contributed to maintenance and repair of the DCC 
        machinery.

5)  Information Technology- e-mail, computer, Inmarsat, radio support?
        a) According to Andreas Muenchow ADCP Windows2000 data 
           recording/operating system unstable; either use Windows XP with 
           RDI software or consider stand alone system to avoid network 
           interruptions (i.e. output to 2 places (1 is a backup) but non-
           networked.  Seabeam is more stable in this regard since it is 
           stand alone.
        b) Ashtec feed from bridge for ADCP made independent of bridge 
           operations(?)  The discussion on this item was confusing and 
           should be raised again with Andreas Muenchow.
        c) Having a networking/data systems specialist (Joe DiGiovanni) on 
           board is absolutely essential.  MST's having such responsibilities 
           as collateral duties is not acceptable.  The success of science 
           missions hinges on the duties Joe performed.  It is also highly 
           desirable that such an individual not have to come up to speed 
           from ground zero for each mission and so assure some continuity in 
           the arrangements for such personnel.

6)  Laboratory operations- scientific support for everything from operations 
    to hazmat to familiarity with equipment
        We suspect that loss of the considerable experience of someone like 
        senior technician Glenn Hendrickson could spell trouble for future 
        missions.  The 5+ years of experience with science operations counts 
        for a lot.  Again continuity will be the issue. 

7)  Laboratory equipment- comments on malfunctions, desires for upgrades, 
    needed new equipment
        a) The distilled water system water purity level needs to be 
           addressed.
        b) The 150 kHz ADCP is inoperational.
        c) CTD-Rosette: The responsibility for water tight connectors, O-
           rings, checking in with Sea-Bird          regarding the 
           unexplained bottle trips needs to be sorted out.
        d) Add position/heading to data stream for thermosalinograph.
        e) Integrate position/heading etc with met obs (note which bird is 
           being recorded.
        f) Work out capability for silencing echosounders on command from 
           working deck
        g) Have hand held unit reading out position/depth on the fantail
        h) The aft conning station wasn't working well.
        i) Gravity coring deck operations were dicey.
        SeaBeam specific questions:
        How much real-time watchstander effort was required?
        How much ping editing was done in the post processing?
        In both cases, who provided the people (CG or scientists?); who was 
           responsible for training the people?

8)  Diving support
        The science party enthusiastically thanks the divers for their 
        innovative positive contributions to the science program.

9)  Science technical services- seawater systems, climate control rooms, 
    winches, etc. 
        The use of the salinometer in the climate control chamber produced 
        excellent data under extremely stable conditions.  It is noisy for 
        the operators though.

10) Small boat ops
        Supplement communications with and Iridium phone.  Climbing the long 
        ladder into and out of the boat is inherently dangerous.  Work out 
        alternate loading strategy.

11) Helo ops
        The pilots were competent with good attitudes.  Science recon went 
        well.  In the perfect world, consider a better bird for science ops.

12) Food service
        Absolutely excellent.  Only complaint was of too much food for those 
        envisioning svelte physiques!

13) Housing/ janitorial
        Streamline check in procedures; Outfit room 404 with desk lamps, 
        towel rack and lower the desks.

14) Safety- particularly deck ops (AICC will probably need to consider both 
    scientist’s view of ops, and CG’s view of scientists)
        Safety conscience level was commendably high.  The true hazards on 
        the ship appear to be structural.  For example, emergency breathing 
        devices boxes are mounted in hazardous locations.  Remove the 
        tripping hazards in the CTD rosette room where people have to 
        circulate.  Like-wise consider tripping hazards on the aft working 
        deck.

15) Administrative services
        Fine.

16) Medical- For ARVOC includes required suites of physicals
        Fine.

17) Travel- As above probably more an ARVOC issue than AICC as we all make 
    our own travel arrangements
        Many thanks to the ship for allowing the use of the liberty vans by 
        the science party while in port!  This contributed greatly to our in 
        port logistics issues.

18) Ship operators- interactions between bridge and scientists, nightly 
    meetings, etc.
        Chief sci and officer of the deck need to be clear about whether 
        exact positioning versus holding a constant wire angle is more 
        important for any given operation.  Such information needs to be 
        passed between watches clearly.  Once the bow-thruster is fixed, I am 
        certain that operating from the aft conning station will improve 
        communications between science and the vessel operators.

19) Any other comments? 
        The use of the helo-deck and high-crane for the current mode of 
        gravity coring operations seems inherently more dicey than it need 
        be.  Pete Kalk made a recommendation for an alternate mode of 
        operation from the main working deck. Please refer to the final 
        paragraphs of the coring report for details.

20) Plans for next trip if relevant.  



DATA PROCESSING NOTES

Event Date  Person           Data Type              Summary 
----------  ---------------  ---------------------  -----------------------
2010-03-24  Falkner, Kelly   BTL                    methodology exception 
            rosette was stopped to trip bottles for cast 42 

2010-03-24  Falkner, Kelly   BTL/Cruise Report      To go online 
            BTL file submitted via email as an excel file. CTD to follow, 
            also public.

2010-04-08  Falkner, Kelly   CTD                    To go online 

2010-08-04  Berys, Carolina  BTL/CTD/Cruise Report  Available under 'Preliminary/Unprocessed' 
            ArchiveHLY031bottledata.xls bottle file and 
            HLY031CruiseReport092603.pdf cruise report submitted by Jerry 
            Kappa on 2010-03-24 and HLY031CTDO.zip CTD files submitted by 
            Kelly Falkner on 2010-04-08 available under 
           'Preliminary/Unprocessed', unprocessed by CCHDO. 

2010-09-02  Muus, Dave       BTL                    Exchange & WOCE format files online
            Notes on Healy 0301 Bottle Data Reformatting Sept 2, 2010/dm 
            1.  Original data received as Excel file: 
                ArchiveHLY031bottledata.xls, from Kelly Falkner, OSU, March 
                24, 2010.
            2.  Assigned Expocode 32H120030721 Cruise dates July 21 - August 
                16, 2003 per Cruise Report
            3.  Used SECT_ID "CAA" (Canadian Arctic Archipelago).
            4.  All data in volume units converted to mass units using 
                'convert_per_litre_to_per_kg_exchange.py'.OXYGEN conversion 
                used CTDTMP.Other conversions used 25 deg C. 
                [SILCAT,NITRAT,NITRIT,PHSPHT,CFC-11,CFC-
                12,CCL4,NH4,BARIUM]TCARBN & ALKALI received as UMOL/KG.
            5.  Station B01, Cast 2, Bottle 24, 12.3db, OXYGEN flag changed 
                from 2 to 9. Missing value blank on Excel file changed to 
                -999.
            6.  Many values are blank on the Excel file with Quality Flags 9. 
                Added -999 for missing values.
            7.  Many CFC-11, CFC12 and CCL4 have apparently good values but 
                blank Quality Flags. Added 2 for missing Quality Flag.
            8.  Station KS01, Cast 45, Bottles 6. Bottle flag 4, SAMPNO blank 
                in original Excel file, No water samples, deleted Station 
                KS09, Cast 48, Bottles 11 & 12. Bottle flags 9, SAMPNO blank 
                in original Excel file, No water samples, deleted
            9.  CTDTMP is average of temp1 and temp2.  CTDSAL is average of 
                Salinities from CTD 1 and CTD 2; except merged CTDSAL#2 only 
                for Casts 39 - 50, CTDSAL #1 missing.
            10. NITRAT is NO2 subtracted from NO3+NO2.
            11. DELO18 calibrated with Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water 
                (VSMOW).





