Ice Navigation Simulator

Review of Ice Navigation Simulator
By
Centre For Marine Simulation, Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial

University of Newfoundland,
P.O. Box 4920, St. John’s, Newfoundland & Labrador,
A1C 5R3
Provided to
Transportation Development Centre

800 René –Lévesque Blvd. W., Suite 600, Montreal, QC H3B 1X9
under the terms of our MOU dated November 6, 2001
December 11, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Summary
2.0 Chronology of Events
3.0 Results of the Delivery of the Fundamentals of Ice Navigation Course
4.0 Overall Evaluation of TDC’s Simulator’s Capabilities
5.0 Conclusions
APPENDIX A Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation Simulator

B Review of International Ice Navigator Course
C Steering Committee Minutes
D Simulator Performance Correspondence

1.0 Introduction and Summary
In accordance with the Memorandum Of Understanding between the Transportation

Development Centre (TDC) and the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial
University (Marine Institute) dated November 6, 2001, the Marine Institute undertook an
evaluation of the Ice Navigation Simulator that was developed under contract to TDC by
PhiloSoft. The Ice Navigator Simulator is described by TDC as a PC based simulation
data system with visual outputs for the support of ice navigation training.
This review of the Ice Navigation Simulator is the seventh and final element of the work
plan between TDC and the Marine Institute. The review is based upon comments and
observations received throughout the evaluation, including the comments received during
the delivery of the “Fundamentals of Ice Navigation” course from February 24-28, 2003.
As a result of the review, a number of observations can be made:
a) There was excellent support for the revised Ice Navigation Training Curriculum.
The revised course appears to better meet the needs of entry-level ice navigators
than the International Ice Navigator Course.
b) There was strong recognition of the need for simulation in entry-level ice
navigation training. The committee of experts determined that simulation is a
valid teaching method for many parts of the ice navigation curriculum. The views
of the experts were confirmed by the students.
c) The combination of the capabilities of both the Ice Navigation Simulator and the
MI’s full mission bridge simulator does not meet the full spectrum of
requirements identified by the committee of experts. Of particular note is the lack
of realistic models for ships maneuvering in ice.
d) The Ice Navigation Simulator, as provided by TDC for evaluation, is considered
by the Marine Institute to be a part-task simulator. The simulator is part-task in
the sense that it does not, nor was intended, to replicate the full complexity of
navigation in ice. The system is a simulator since it permits the operation of one
or more numerical models over time (ref. DMSO definition of a simulator).
e) The capability of the Ice Navigation Simulator to act as a stimulator or as a
federate in a larger simulator was not evaluated. Additional reviews are
recommended to determine the capability of the simulator to interact with other
systems.
f) Future work on the simulator should concentrate upon having it meet the general
requirements for simulators used in mariner training (i.e.: STCW '95 Section A-
I/12 - especially the requirements for physical realism and instructor control of
exercises), as well as ensuring that the simulator can integrate with other
simulators to enable full mission simulation. It was established through review,
the seminar/workshop and a test course that the simulator, with some changes,
could be an excellent tool for teaching navigation and operations in ice-infested
waters.
Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 1

g) Although not a formal part of the evaluation, it was noted by both the committee
of experts and the students that ICEANAV is an excellent tool to assist ice
navigators.
2.0 Chronology of Events
A Memorandum Of Understanding was signed November 6/2001 between TDC and the
Marine Institute. It was based on a proposal submitted on October 4/2001 to evaluate the
Ice Navigation Simulator (Appendix A).
The International Ice Navigator Course was investigated at the beginning of 2002 and
that investigation culminated in the Review of International Ice Navigator Course Interim
Report (Appendix B) on March 29/2002.
The simulator was installed at the Marine Institute April 17/2002 and was tested out for
use. The Training Aids Module (TAM) was received February 25/2002 for assessment
with the simulator.
On May 9/2002 a Steering Committee Meeting (Minutes Appendix C) validated the

evaluation methods and decided that all reports of defects, comments on simulator
performance, and requests for enhancements should be sent to TDC as they were
discovered. A compilation of the messages sent to TDC can be found in Appendix D.
Changes were made to the simulator as a result of the comments submitted by the Marine
Institute. The first changes were related to the instability of the simulator software, and
were received on June 26/2002. These changes solved the simulator’s instability problem.
Additional updates were received on November 14/2002 and on November 25/2002. The
November updates were minor, from the perspective of the user, and were not easy to
observe on the simulator. On February 17, 2003, a segment of a new world was received.
The new world incorporated unwanted features in its textures and could not be corrected
prior to the start of the pilot course. In addition, the new world contained an ice regime
that could not be safely entered by the type of ownship provided with the simulator if the
principals of ARISS were to be applied.
3.0 Results of the Delivery of the Fundamentals of Ice Navigation Course
Participants:
Lt. Zachary Ford United States Coast Guard

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

Instructors:
Capt. Sean Sheppard

Capt. Sean Sheppard has extensive experience in navigating in ice in
commercial vessels. Capt. Sheppard is also a seasoned simulation
instructor and delivers the Simulated Electronic Navigation program at the
Marine Institute.
Capt. Andrew McNeill
Capt. Andrew McNeill is an adjunct instructor at the Marine Institute.
Capt. McNeill is also a commanding officer in the Canadian Coast Guard,
and has extensive icebreaking experience.
Ms. Tracey O’Keefe
Ms. Tracey O’Keefe is a full-time instructor at the Marine Institute with
an expertise in ship system design. Ms. O'Keefe has a background and
keen interest in design for cold-ocean.
Capt. Klaus Hye-Knudsen
Capt. Klaus Hye-Knudsen is instructor with the Centre for Marine
Simulation and specializes in the design of simulation based training
programs. Capt. Hye-Knudsen has some ice experience in the merchant
fleets. Capt. Hye-Knudsen also participated in the development of a
program to training simulation instructors in the Philippines on the
effective use of simulation in training.
Facilities/Tools:
Both TDC’s Ice Simulator and the Marine Institute’s NMS 90 Full Mission
Bridge Simulator were used for the exercises.
During the course development, the developers made use of the Training Aids
Module (TAM). It offers lot of valuable information but for classroom instruction
it is cumbersome to use in its present format. It could be put to good use if the
course is ever delivered as a distance course either in part or in total. The Marine
Institute course used the text, Ice Navigation in Canadian Waters, which
participants and instructors found to be an excellent book for the purpose.
Schedule
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

09:00 Introduction 2. Regulations 4 Maneuvering 7. Effect of low Simulation
1 Ice Regime Publications in ice temp. Exercise for
- ice types maneuvering and
- ice icebreakers
concentration

Cpt S. Sheppard Cpt. McNeill Part simulation Tracey O’Keefe Cpt Sheppard
Cpt.S Sheppard Cpt. S. Sheppard Cpt McNeill
Cpt Hye- Cpt Hye-
Knudsen Knudsen
Lunch @ 1300
!3:00 1 Ice Regime 6. Icebreaker Class @ 1400 5. Nav. In ice
Part simulation operations 3. V/L Cpt S Sheppard
Characteristics
Cpt S. Sheppard Part simulation Tracey O’Keefe Part simulation
Cpt Hye- Cpt. McNeill Cpt S Sheppard
Knudsen Cpt. Hye- Cpt. Hye-
Knudsen Knudsen
Results
Overall, the course was well received and recommended by all participants. Information
about the course was collected by instructors and by use of Course Evaluation form QAP-
10-2, which is the standard evaluation form, used at the Marine Institute. It asks the
student to rate a number of standard items from 1 to 5, 1 being poor and 5 being
excellent.
The following is the average of the standard questions:
Reliability of simulator 4.6

Adequacy of equipment used 4.2
during course
Realism of simulated 4.4
environment (physical
realism)
Content of course 4.4
Quality of course 4.2
materials/handouts
Realism of exercises 4.6
(operational realism)
Instructors’ knowledge of 4.8
materials
Instructor’s presentation 4.6
Quality of briefings and 4.6
debriefings
Registration process 4.6
Services (e.g. parking, 4.2
cafeteria, library, bookstore,
etc
Housekeeping and 4.25
cleanliness

Table of comments from course evaluation form (QAP-10-2)

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

Course Made Good (CMG) changed faster than the course steered
Ice resolution is far less detailed on the main server than the radar picture
No clear height of ice on the visual channels
The areas available (world) not suited for the simulation needed
More background material (Ice charts, weather maps and so on) should be available
with information for several days before the sailing time.
That the simulator showed how difficult it is to change course on M/V Arctic in 1.5
metre ice was found to be very realistic.
During the preparation for the course it was impossible to save the exercises but the last
changes received February 17/2003 again allow exercises to be saved.
4.0 Overall Evaluation of TDC’s Simulator’s Capabilities
The table below summarizes the capabilities of the ice navigation simulator. The left-
hand column contains those elements of the training syllabus that the committee of
experts believed should be simulated for an effective program. The centre column

contains type of features or functionality required of the simulation. The right-hand

column contains notes on the existing capabilities of the ice navigation simulator
provided by TDC for the purposes of evaluation.
Course Element Desired Capabilities Observed Capabilities

1.2 Ice types and Explain and report. Compare The visual channels showing
concentrations to other ice information of ice was such that it was
difficult to distinguish
between the different types
and concentrations of ice;
when it comes to height
differences only icebergs
have any visual height.
The world that the ship
operated in only had very
limited differences in
concentration.
1.3 Ice reporting, coding and Report ice condition. Contact The visual channels showing
terminology ice advisory and receive of ice did not allow for this
forecast. Report ice as seen. type of exercise to take place.
1.4 Signs of ice in the Simulate signs This could only be shown to
vicinity a limited degree.
1.5 Ice imagery Used in planning for Planning exercises were
simulation. Send raw data to created but not executed on
ship during simulation the simulator because
suitable match of ship
capabilities and ice
conditions could not be
found to meet the training
objectives.
1.6 Effect of wind and Simulate leads closing The simulator has static (i.e.
current on ice motion relative to weather pattern stationary) ice so this is not
possible.
2.1 Regulations Change of ice requires The static ice on the
reporting. Safety control simulator makes it
zone order. Oil transfer impossible to introduce
dynamic changes to the ice
regime, which would trigger
an action on the part of the
ice navigator.

3.1 Vessel types A number of ships for The simulator now has a
different behaviors, equipped number of ships on it, and
with different propeller and dependent on their size the
hull types ice makes more or less
resistance, this should be
investigated.
4.1 Approaching, entering Simulate all. Simulate with It was extremely difficult to
and transiting ice iceberg roll. Safe passing find the desired conditions
distance from icebergs. Ice required for training within
navigation with other ships the worlds that were
and land provided. Their areas of
coverage combined with
coarse feature resolution
made it impossible to locate
the desired ice conditions for
scenario development.
4.3 Avoidance and freeing of Simulate with different The visuals (looking out the
beset vessel levels, learn when to call windows from the bridge)
icebreaker gave no height indication
(made ice looking flat) ridges
and lead with grey ice looks
the same.
4.4 Maneuvering capabilities Different ships with different The world as created did not
capabilities and ship with give us possibilities to
changeable draft maneuver around ice. It is
either too heavy ice or giving
no hindrance at all.
4.5 Docking and undocking Docking could be simulated The simulator was not
and thrusters could be used created for this.
4.6 Safety procedures during Would all be part of Having a simulator that uses
ice transit. simulation. Will be static ice. Ice is not moving,
incorporated into all creating pressures or
problems that will be used in opportunities and therefore it
simulation. For example is difficult to use the
Conception Bay ice under simulator for safety
pressure could be used procedures during ice transit.

5.1 Ice navigation Place the terrestrial IceNav is an excellent tool.

navigation aids in wrong Many of the attributes of
position. Compass errors. Navigation while in ice can
Simulate Radar GPS and be practiced through Ice Nav.
DGPS with Datum problems. The Simulator is not
Use IceNav and or similar equipped to generate errors
equipment. Datum exercise (instrument and
necessary e.g. with bad communications).
visibility and land. Use of
communications of different
kinds
5.2 Passage planning Simulation preparation Each world needs a greater
suite of ice and weather
information leading up to the
date of the world’s date.
6.1 Icebreaker requirement Preparation. Observation of Simulator’s visual channels
ice. Call for icebreaker. did not give a good enough
Recall when situation calls picture of the ice to judge
for icebreaker what ice to avoid. The radar
gives a picture somewhat
close to the picture on the
IceNav.
6.2 Icebreaker Use of communications with Simulator was not equipped

communication icebreaker. Emergency for this kind of simulation.
signals
6.4 Safe speed and distances Two ships in operation with Simulator was not equipped
varying speed and emergency for this kind of simulation.
procedures. Respect for ice
6.5 Convoy operations Similar to previous operation Simulator was not equipped
for this kind of simulation.
5.0 Conclusions
Under STCW '95, Table A-II/2 (Specification of minimum standard of competence for
masters and chief mates on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more), passage planning in ice
covered waters as well as ice navigation are mandatory training requirements. In both
cases, approved simulator training is authorized as long as the simulator conforms with
the minimum performance standards outlined in Section A-I/12 parts 1 and 2. The two
key elements of the performance standard that justify the rational for evaluating the
simulator performance against training objectives (as outlined in Section 4) are:

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

appropriate to the training objectives; and,
.4 provide a controlled operating environment, capable of producing a
variety of conditions, which may include emergency, hazardous or unusual
situations relevant to assessment objectives.

Section B-I/12 (Guidance regarding the use of simulators) states that simulators should
also be able to:
37.3 realistically simulate ‘own ship’ dynamic in open water conditions,

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

operational capabilities of navigational radar equipment, which meets all
applicable performance standards adapted by the Organization [see resolutions
A.222(VII), A.278(VIII) and A.477(XII)]…
The user interface to the radar using the student console provided by TDC does not meet
the STCW requirements. TDC has advised the Marine Institute that the radar interface
was not intended to be used for training purposes, but was provided to view what the
ship’s radar output would look like if it was being displayed on a navigational radar.
This being the case, then the radar screen provided with the simulator should be marked
“NOT TO BE USED FOR RADAR TRAINING” to avoid students relying on the
display.
The radar image does not match the appearance of shipboard radars currently in use. The
reaction of seasoned ice navigators was that the simulated shipboard display looked like
radar images currently available through satellite. While TDC asserts that the simulated
image looks like images available from advanced shipboard radars, there should be an
option to process the simulated image so that it looks more like existing ship radar
displays.

There is also a mismatch in the resolution of ice features between the radar representation
(high resolution) and the visual channels (low resolution). The result is that the navigator
cannot realistically correlate the two displays and is presented with an unreal sensor
conflict. Since ice navigation relies upon both visual and radar cues, it is imperative to
undertake work to resolve the mismatch between the visual and radar channels.
STCW’95 Section B-I/12 states that the simulator should:
37.2 provide a realistic visual scenario by day and by night, including variable
visibility, or by night only as seen from the bridge, with a minimum horizontal
field of view available to the trainee in viewing sectors appropriate to the
navigation and watchkeeping tasks and objectives.
The visual channel needs improvement in the way it represents visual cues for ice
(colour, concentration and height). For example 10/10ths grey ice looks the same as a 3.3
m high ridge. More realistic visual representation of the ice regime would permit more
objectives of the course to be covered with the simulator. Attention to improving the
visual cues will enhance the ability of the simulator to be used in its current part-task
configuration.
The physical realism that STCW’95 asks for is very important as it encourages the
student to accept the concept of simulation. It is difficult for the student to accept that
s/he is steering as ship sitting in front of six (6) computers. All the small details that can
be fixed should be fixed in order to encourage the feeling of realism.
The ship movement display is a problem. Heading ought to be displayed as degrees with
one decimal, no minutes, no seconds or anything else. The same may be said for CMG.
Navigators will expect Rate of Turn to display in degree per minutes (degree/minutes)
and not degree per seconds.
Future Development
Future simulator development plans should not only concentrate upon improving the
performance of the existing simulator as outlined in the above three points, but also in
expanding ice navigation simulation capabilities in general. Commercial simulator
manufacturers (Transas and Kongsberg for example) indicate that their simulators have
some ice navigation capabilities. The Marine Institute, the Institute for Marine Dynamics,
and Oceanic Consulting Corporation are all working towards building ice navigation
capabilities for simulators. Undoubtedly there are other entities working towards the
same goal as well. An effort to coordinate the various efforts to reduce overlap and to
optimize resource allocation would be a useful exercise.
The trend in simulation is towards open systems and distributed simulation. While the
focus of this report has been on the evaluation of the Ice Navigation Simulator as a part-
task simulator, the capabilities of the simulator to act as a Federate within a larger

commercial simulator should be investigated. The ability of the simulator to stimulate

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

Appendix A
Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation

Simulator
Submitted by
Centre for Marine Simulation

Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University
PO Box 4920
St. John’s, NF A1C 5R3
July 27, 2001
(Revised October 4, 2001)

Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation Simulator
Introduction
Effective and safe sea transportation on the East Coast of Canada as well as the
Canadian Arctic requires ships officers to be skilled in ice navigation. The
requirement for skilled ice navigators is not unique to Canada, and is shared by
many Countries that conduct shipping operations in high latitudes.
Transport Canada has been reviewing the requirements for ice navigation training
for a number of years. In 1996, Transport Canada presented the “International Ice
Navigator Course – Draft” to the Ice Navigation and Training Group of the
Circumpolar Advisory Group on ice Operations. The course was prepared over a
two year period by Canarctic Shipping in association with the Fisheries and
Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland (Marine Institute).
In order to support the learning objectives of the International Ice Navigator

Course, Transport Canada sponsored the development of an Ice Navigation
Simulator through the Transportation Development Centre (TDC). Funding for
the project came from PERD and the Prairie and Northern Region of Transport
Canada.
On March 31, 2001, TDC accepted the first prototype of the Ice Navigation
Simulator from PhiloSoft. The features of the prototype simulator include visual
presentation of the ice environment around the vessel; realistic ship movements
through ice; shipboard radar simulation; and outputs for standard shipboard
equipment.
At a presentation of the prototype simulator at the Marine Institute on February

16, 2001, TDC expressed and interest in conducting an evaluation of the simulator
in a realistic training environment. This proposal is in response to the expression
of interest by TDC.
Objectives
The primary objective is to evaluate the capability of the prototype Ice Navigation
Simulator to meet selected training objectives in the International Ice Navigator
Course.
Secondary objectives include:
• Investigate the integration of the simulator with CMS simulators and

live equipment; and,
• Investigate the benefits of ICENAV in ice operations.

Work Elements
In general, the work will consist of reviewing and incorporating the prototype Ice
Navigation Simulator into the International Ice Navigator Course, and delivering
2 or more pilot courses. A report will be produced evaluating the utility of the
simulator in training and make recommendations for future enhancements.
The specific work elements are outlined below:
1. Review of the International Ice Navigator Course. The purpose of the review
is to determine the elements of the syllabus that are suited to simulation. As
part of the review, any elements of the syllabus that requires updating will be
noted and a separate report produced for the Transportation Development
Centre.
2. Install the prototype Ice Navigation Simulator and conduct user training. The
first part of this work element is to ensure that the simulator provided is
complete and working correctly. The second component of this work
element will ensure that Marine Institute personnel are fully trained on the
operational and technical aspects of the simulator.
3. Review the capabilities of the prototype Ice Navigation Simulator. The
purpose of the review is to determine the capabilities of the simulator and to
match the capabilities against the learning objectives of the course that are
suited for simulation.
4. Develop exercises for use with the prototype Ice Navigation Simulator. As
part of the Quality Assurance program for the Marine Institute, all courses
using simulation must have the exercises fully documented including student
and instructor materials. The exercises produced will remain the property of
the Marine Institute, however a copy of the exercises will be provided to the
Crown to further regulatory developments in ice navigation.
5. Interface standard navigation equipment with the simulator. Depending upon
an assessment of the technical capabilities of the simulator and the estimated
costs of the interface, and attempt will be made to interface the simulator with
standard navigation equipment. Interface options include part-task navigation
instruments, ownship cubicles in the blind pilotage simulator, and the full
mission bridge simulator.
6. Deliver pilot courses. The purpose of this work element is to test and refine
the training program before selected groups of students. Initial offerings will
be opened to ice navigators with experience in both icebreaker escort
operations and merchant vessel ice navigation operations. Students from the
pilot courses will provide feedback that will be used to adjust the program and
to evaluate the use of simulation in the program.
7. Report the results of the evaluation. A written report will be submitted to
TDC on the results of the trials as well as providing a list of recommendations
for future work. The report will also include a summary of the student
evaluations received during the pilot courses.

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

future work.
2. An interim report on the results of the ice navigation syllabus review.
Participants
Steering Committee
Capt. Anthony Patterson (Co-Chair)

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

Capt. Glenn Fiander
Capt. Ed Anthony
Capt. Andrew McNeil
Mr. Charles Marton
Mr. James Evely
Mr. Spencer Barnes
Ice Navigation Specialists as Required
Facilities/Equipment
TDC
Provision of prototype simulator, complete with associated hardware, to the

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

Schedule
The project is anticipated to be completed within 12 months of delivery of the

simulator to the Marine Institute.
A tentative project schedule is outlined below:
1. Sign MOU with TDC at CMAC - Nov. 2001

2. Complete internal review of Ice Navigation Training Program - Jan. 2002
3. Complete installation and training on simulator - Jan. 2002
4. Panel of Experts review of Ice Navigation Program & Simulator
Capabilities - Feb. 2002
5. Finalize Interim Report on review of Ice Navigation Training Program for
TC - March 31, 2002
6. Finalize Initial Exercise Designs & Production of Course Materials - May,
2002
7. Deliver Pilot Course - June, 2002
8. Submit Program to NPC, with suitable revisions, for approval - Sept.
2002
9. Submit Draft Final report to TDC - Sept. 2002
10. Present Final Report to TDC at CMAC - Nov. 2002
Costs
TDC will cover the costs of the provision of hardware/software, installation of the
simulator at the Marine Institute, the associated training program for Marine
Institute personnel, and any technical assistance costs associated with the project.
The Marine Institute will cover all costs associated with instructor salaries and
facility usage.
Participants in the pilot courses will be expected to cover their own costs.
Extra costs associated with the interface with live equipment, or any additional
work added to this proposal will be negotiated between the Marine Institute and
TDC prior to the work commencing.
Licenses to utilize the ice navigation simulation software after the conclusion of
the evaluation project will be negotiated separately by the Marine Institute.

Appendix B
Review of International Ice Navigator Course
Interim Report
Prepared by
Centre for Marine Simulation

Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland
P.O. Box 4920
St. John’s, NF
A1C 5R3
March 29, 2002
CMS Project 6100-2001-03

Review of International Ice Navigator Course

Introduction and Executive Summary
In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated November 6, 2001, the

Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland (“Marine Institute”)
agreed to conduct a review of the International Ice Navigator Course and report the results of
the review to the Transportation Development Centre (TDC). The operational unit within the
Marine Institute that has conducted the review is the Centre for Marine Simulation (CMS).
The review of the International Ice Navigator Course is the first element of a seven (7) part
work plan to evaluate, and demonstrate the capabilities of, the Ice Navigation Simulator
developed under contract to TDC by PhiloSoft. The primary purposes of the review were to
identify those elements of the existing syllabus that are suited to simulation as well as to
critically examine the syllabus to identify possible updates and/or revisions.
The International Ice Navigators Course currently consists of two parts, each part being one
week in duration. The first part deals with introductory topics while the second deals with
advanced topics. The project team recommends that the international course be revised to be
a one week program that focuses upon introducing ice navigation to professional mariners
who are about to conduct operations in ice covered waters for the first time. Advanced
courses for experienced ice navigators will be specialized in nature and should be delivered
on a case-by-case basis.
Under the terms of the November 6, 2001 MOU, the results of the syllabus review are to be
submitted to TDC as an interim report. The interim report, in turn, will form the foundation
upon which the detailed evaluation of the simulator will be based.
Project Team
Capt. Klaus Hye-Knudsen was designated as project leader for the review. Capt. Hye-
Knudsen is an instructor at CMS that has specialized expertise in the development of
simulation based training programs. Capt. Hye-Knudsen also has previous operational
experience in operating commercial vessels in ice-covered waters.
Capt. Andrew McNeill was assigned to assist Capt. Hye-Knudsen in the review of the
syllabus. Capt. McNeill is an adjunct instructor at CMS and has extensive, and recent, ice
experience as a Commanding Officer with the Canadian Coast Guard. Capt. McNeill is fully
familiar with current methods and technology associated with ice navigation in Canada.
Capt. Anthony Patterson provided general support and guidance to the project team. Capt.
Patterson has experience as a watchkeeping officer on both Canadian Coast Guard
icebreakers as well as specially ice strengthened commercial vessels. Capt. Patterson also
has experience in the management of technology evaluation projects.

Method
The evaluation of the syllabus was conducted in 3 phases. In the first phase, both Capt.’s
McNeill and Hye-Knudsen conducted independent evaluations of the syllabus for content a
relevancy. Obsolete and irrelevant items were identified during this part of the review. The
second phase consisted of a review of the course content to determine the best method to
present the topics. The general format of the International Maritime Organization (as
adapted by Transport Canada) was used to categorize the teaching elements as “simulation”,
“demonstration” and “knowledge”. The third and final phase was to synthesize all comments
and observations into a proposed “revised” syllabus.
The review of the syllabus was conducted independently of a review of the simulator.
Indeed, the simulator was not delivered to the Marine Institute until after the project team had
completed its evaluation. The independent review of the syllabus is seen to be of critical
importance to the project to ensure that the simulator is objectively evaluated against the
teaching requirements of the ice navigation program.
Results
Phases 1 & 2
Below is a table, which gives recommendations concerning the courses. Topics

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

the changes outlined in the explanatory notes section will bring the two-part ice
navigator training program up-to-date and enhance them.
International Ice Navigator Level I

Recommendation
1.0 International Vessel Ice Classification

1.1 Ice Strengthening Requirement Revise
2.0 Ice Regime

2.1 Ice Physics, Formation, Growth Aging Demonstrate
and melting.
2.2 Ice Types and Concentrations Demonstrate
2.3 Ice reporting Coding and Terminology Demonstrate
2.4 Ice advisories and Forecasts Demonstrate
2.5 Reporting of Ice and Icing events as Demonstrate
required by SOLAS and CSA

2.6 Signs of Ice in the Vicinity Simulate

2.7 Ice Imagery Revise Demonstrate Simulate
2.8 Effects of Wind and Current on Ice Simulate
Motion
3.0 Regulations and Publications Revise
4.0 Vessel Characteristics Revise

4.1 Vessel Types Simulate
4.2 Manoeuvring Capabilities Simulate
4.3 Hull Design Knowledge
4.4 Cargo Requirements Knowledge
5.0 Manoeuvring and Operating Independently in Ice
5.1 Approaching, Entering, and Transiting Simulate

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

6.1 Navigational Aids and Seasons Knowledge
6.2 Charts and Publications Revise
6.3 Compasses Simulate
6.4 Electronic Systems and Aids Simulate
6.5 Astronomical Position Fixing Remove
6.6 New and Developing Technologies Revise
6.7 Communications Simulate
7.0 Icebreaker Operations

7.1 Icebreaker Communication Simulate
7.2 General Ice breaker Operating Simulate
Methods and Assisted Transit
8.0 Effects of Extreme Low Temperatures

8.1 Brittleness of ships components due to Knowledge
Freezing
8.2 Freezing of equipment Knowledge
8.3 Methods and Precautions in De-icing Knowledge
9.0 Emergency Procedures and Survival Techniques
9.1 Fire-fighting hazards in sub-zero Demonstrate

conditions
9.2 Abandonment of Vessel in Ice infested Demonstrate
waters
9.3 Survival on the Ice Demonstrate
9.4 Safety Procedures During Ice Transit Simulate

International Ice Navigator Level II
1.0 Manoeuvring and piloting strategies

1.1 Ice Transiting Simulate
1.2 Freeing a vessel beset Simulate
1.3 Hazardous Ice Transit Simulate
1.4 Towing in Ice Simulate
1.5 Docking and Undocking Simulate
1.6 Operation of a damaged vessel Simulate
1.7 Speciality Ice operations Simulate
2.0 Icebreaker assistance

2.1 Icebreaker operating methods Simulate
2.2 Signals and Communications Simulate
2.3 Safe speeds and distances Simulate
2.4 Convoy operations Simulate
3.0 Stability considerations

3.1 Causes and Effects of Icing Demonstrate
3.2 Stability Considerations when Ice Demonstrate
Breaking
4.0 Ice damage and damage control

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

5.1 Appraisal and Analysis of passage Simulate
planning data
5.2 Meteorological and environmental Simulate
effects
5.3 Cultural considerations Knowledge
Explanatory Notes
Ice Navigation Level I

The topic “Astronomical Position Fixing” may be removed, as conditions are not so different
in the Arctic that a proficient navigator would need extra training.
The Canadian Arctic Pollution Prevention Regulation (CAPPR) has been revised; therefore
the sections “Ice Strengthening Requirement” and “Regulations and Publications” need to be
amended.

Revisions to “Ice Imagery”, “Charts and Publications”, “New Technology”, and

“Communications” are necessary because of advances in and new uses of technology.
Most of the topics under “Ice Regime”, “Emergency Procedures”, and “Survival Techniques”
would benefit from revision that would include new uses of computer applications.
(Incidentally, “Emergency Procedures” and “Survival Techniques” could be moved from this
course to the Marine Emergency Duties course.)
The topics “Effect of Extreme Low Temperature”, “Hull Design”, “Cargo Requirements”,
and “Navigational Aids and Seasons” are still valid and need not change. “Navigational Aids
and Seasons” can be simulated to some degree.
The remaining topics would benefit from some sort of simulation. Topics such as
“Manoeuvring and Operating Independently in Ice”, “Approaching, Entering and Transiting
Ice”, “Manoeuvring Astern”, “Communications” and “Electronic Systems and Aids” are
prime candidates for simulation.
Ice Navigator Level II
Simulation would improve the way most of the Level II course is taught. All of the topics
under 1.0 “Manoeuvring and Piloting Strategies” and all the topics under 2.0 “Icebreaker
Assistance” can be taught with simulation. The major part of the topics under 5.0 “Passage
Planning” can be taught with simulation.
“Stability Considerations” and “Damage Discovery” can be enhanced by computer

demonstration.
“Engineering Considerations”, “Pollution Control and Contingency Planning” and “Cultural

Considerations” are fine as they are.
Phase 3
A close reading of the Draft: International Ice Navigator Course suggests several changes. It
is felt that, for the student, an introductory course is far more important than a course taken
after experience navigating in ice. The current Level II course has three problems - it is in
places too specific, in others too repetitive of the Level I course and it brings the student back
for another week of schooling.
A tightening of the Level I and II course coverage and layout as well as use of computers and
simulation would turn the two courses into one. One course of one-week duration might also
be more saleable to all parties concerned with ice navigation. If a new Level II course is
desirable it could be taught as a distance education course.
The new Ice Navigator Course would see the following topics pulled from the Level I
course:

1.0 Move the 1.1 “Ice Strengthening Requirement” to 4.0 “Vessel

Characteristics”. (The Canadian Arctic Pollution Prevention Regulation
(CAPPR) is much clearer on this issue.)
2.0 Move 2.4 and 2.5 “Ice Advisory and Forecast” and “Reporting of Ice and
Icing Events” as required by SOLAS and CSA into 2.3 “Ice Reporting,
Coding and Terminology” to make one heading dealing with ice reporting and
coding.
2.7 Revise “Ice Imagery” to reflect today’s practice.
3.0 Revise “Regulations and Publications” to cover only the part that pertains to
“Ice Navigation”. Such a revision will eliminate half the material currently in
the course.
4.0 Revise “Vessel Characteristics” to contain 1.1 “Ice Strengthening

Requirement”. Move 4.2 “Manoeuvring Capabilities” to 5.0 “Manoeuvring
and Operating”.
5.0 Keep “Moving and Operating Independently in Ice” as is.
6.0 Section 6 “Navigation in Ice” is just plain navigation. Cut it back, making it a
small topic concerned with the details about charts and chart datum in the
Arctic. Incorporate 9.4 “Safety Procedures during Ice Transit” and keep this
as one topic called “Navigating in the Arctic”.
7.0 Revise “Ice-breaker Operation” to contain all the material from course Level
II topic 2.0 “Icebreaker Assistance”. That will save teaching it twice.
8.0 Keep “Effect of Extreme Low Temperatures” as is.
9.1 “Fire Fighting Hazards and Sub-zero Conditions” and 9.3 “Survival on the
Ice” belong in the Marine Emergency Duties (MED) course. Move 9.4
“Safety Procedures during Ice Transit” and place it with 6.0 “Navigation in
Ice”.
The following topics from the Level II course move into the new course in the
following ways:
1.1 “Ice Transiting moves to topic 5.0 “Manoeuvring in Ice”.

1.2 “Freeing a Vessel Beset” moves to topic 5.0 “Manoeuvring in Ice”.
1.3 “Hazardous Ice Transit” moves to 2.2 “Ice Types and Concentrations”.
1.5 “Docking and Undocking” moves to 5.0 “Manoeuvring in Ice”.
2.0 All of “Icebreaker Assistance” moves to 7.0 “Icebreaker Operations”.

4.1 Revise “Areas of Frequent Damage on Vessels” and move it into 8.0 “Effects
of Extreme Low Temperatures”.
4.2 Revise “Damage Discovery and Recognition” and move it to 8.0 “Effects of
extreme Low Temperatures”.
5.1 Move “Appraisal and Analysis of Passage Planning Data” to topic 6.0
“Navigation in Ice”.
5.2 Move “Meteorological and Environmental Effects” to 6.0 “Navigation in Ice”.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the remainder of the project focus on the delivery of the revised 1
week Ice Navigators Course. The changes noted during phase 3 of the evaluation will make
the course look like the following course outline. In making the changes topic 1.0
“International vessel Ice Classification” disappears as a topic by itself, causing all topics to
become one number lower than in the previous courses.

Comparison between Old and Revised Courses
Left for deletion or other

International Ice Navigator Level 1 Moved to Revised Course courses
1.0 International Vessel Ice

Classification
1.1 Ice Strengthening Requirement 1.1 Ice Strengthening Requirement
2.0 Ice Regime

2.1 Ice Physics, Formation, Growth 2.1 Ice Physics, Formation, Growth
Aging and melting. Aging and melting.
2.2 Ice Types and Concentrations 2.2 Ice Types and Concentrations
2.3 Ice reporting Coding and 2.3 Ice reporting Coding and
Terminology Terminology
2.4 Ice advisories and Forecasts 2.4 Ice advisories and Forecasts
2.5 Reporting of Ice and Icing
2.5 Reporting of Ice and Icing events events as required by SOLAS and
as required by SOLAS and CSA CSA
2.6 Signs of Ice in the Vicinity 2.6 Signs of Ice in the Vicinity
2.7 Ice Imagery 2.7 Ice Imagery
2.8 Effects of Wind and Current on 2.8 Effects of Wind and Current on
Ice Motion Ice Motion
3.0 Regulations and Publications 3.0 Regulations and Publications 3.0 Regulations and Publications
4.0 Vessel Characteristics

4.1 Vessel Types 4.1 Vessel Types
4.2 Manoeuvring Capabilities 4.2 Manoeuvring Capabilities
4.3 Hull Design 4.3 Hull Design
4.4 Cargo Requirements 4.4 Cargo Requirements
5.0 Manoeuvring and Operating

Independently in Ice
5.1 Approaching, Entering, and 5.1 Approaching, Entering, and
Transiting Ice. Transiting Ice.
5.2 Manoeuvring Astern 5.2 Manoeuvring Astern
5.3 Avoidance of becoming Beset 5.3 Avoidance of becoming Beset
6.0 Navigation in Ice 6.0 Navigation in Ice

6.1 Navigational Aids and
6.1 Navigational Aids and Seasons Seasons
6.2 Charts and Publications 6.2 Charts and Publications
6.3 Compasses 6.3 Compasses
6.4 Electronic Systems and Aids 6.4 Electronic Systems and Aids
6.5 Astronomical Position Fixing 6.5 Astronomical Position Fixing

6.6 New and Developing 6.6 New and Developing
Technologies Technologies

6.7 Communications 6.7 Communications

7.1 Icebreaker Communication 7.1 Icebreaker Communication
7.2 General Ice breaker Operating 7.2 General Ice breaker Operating
Methods and Assisted Transit Methods and Assisted Transit
8.0 Effects of Extreme Low

Temperatures
8.1 Brittleness of ships components 8.1 Brittleness of ships components
due to Freezing due to Freezing
8.2 Freezing of equipment 8.2 Freezing of equipment
8.3 Methods and Precautions in De- 8.3 Methods and Precautions in De-
icing icing
9.0 Emergency Procedures and 9.0 Emergency Procedures and

Survival Techniques Survival Techniques
9.1 Firefighting hazards in sub-zero 9.1 Firefighting hazards in sub-
conditions zero conditions
9.2 Abandonment of Vessel in Ice 9.2 Abandonment of Vessel in
infested waters Ice infested waters
9.3 Survival on the Ice 9.3 Survival on the Ice
9.4 Safety Procedures During Ice 9.4 Safety Procedures During Ice
Transit Transit
International Ice Navigator Level 2
1.0 Manoeuvring and piloting

strategies
1.1 Ice Transiting 1.1 Ice Transiting
1.2 Freeing a vessel beset 1.2 Freeing a vessel beset
1.3 Hazardous Ice Transit 1.3 Hazardous Ice Transit
1.4 Towing in Ice 1.4 Towing in Ice
1.5 Docking and Undocking 1.5 Docking and Undocking
1.6 Operation of a damaged
1.6 Operation of a damaged vessel vessel
1.7 Speciality Ice operations 1.7 Speciality Ice operations
2.0 Icebreaker assistance

2.1 Icebreaker operating methods 2.1 Icebreaker operating methods
2.2 Signals and Communications 2.2 Signals and Communications
2.3 Safe speeds and distances 2.3 Safe speeds and distances
2.4 Convoy operations 2.4 Convoy operations
3.0 Stability considerations 3.0 Stability considerations

3.1 Causes and Effects of Icing 3.1 Causes and Effects of Icing
3.2 Stability Considerations when Ice 3.2 Stability Considerations
Breaking when Ice Breaking

4.0 Ice damage and damage control

4.1 Areas of frequent damage on 4.1 Areas of frequent damage on
vessels vessels
4.2 Engineering considerations 4.2 Engineering considerations
4.3 Damage discovery and 4.3 Damage discovery and
recognition recognition
4.4 Temporary repair techniques 4.4 Temporary repair techniques
4.5 Pollution control and contingency 4.5 Pollution control and
planning contingency planning
5.0 Passage Planning

5.1 Appraisal and Analysis of 5.1 Appraisal and Analysis of
passage planning data passage planning data
5.1 Appraisal and Analysis of 5.1 Appraisal and Analysis of
passage planning data passage planning data
5.3 Cultural considerations 5.3 Cultural considerations

Appendix A
REVISED ICE NAVIGATOR COURSE
Revise Knowledge Demonstrate Simulate

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

ageing, and stages of melt
1.2. Ice types and concentrations
1.3. Ice reporting, coding, and
terminology
1.4. Ice advisories and forecasts
1.5. Signs of ice in the vicinity
1.6. Ice imagery
2.0 Regulations and publications
3.0 Vessel characteristics
3.1. Vessel types

3.2. Hull Designs
3.3. Ice strengthening requirements
4.0 Manoeuvring in ice
4.1. Approaching, entering, and transiting ice

4.2. Manoeuvring astern
4.3. Avoidance and freeing vessel beset
4.4. Manoeuvring capabilities
4.5. Docking and undocking
4.6. Safety procedures during ice transit
5.0 Navigation in ice
5.1. Navigation in the Arctic

5.2. Passage Planning
6.1. Icebreaker communication

6.2. Icebreaker operating methods
6.3. Safe speeds and distances

6.4. Convoy operations
7.0 Effects of extreme low temperatures
7.1. Brittleness of ships components

7.2. Freezing of equipment
7.3. Methods and precautions in de-icing
7.4. Ships preparations for low temperatures
It may be felt that some of the subjects removed from the Level I and/or Level II
courses are too valuable to lose. If so, any of the following ideas could be used to
obtain the same results without extending the student's time in the classroom.
1) A prerequisite distance course (if the student needs it) on knowledge-

based material, such as regulations and publications. If there is room to
cover these topics in the regular part this pre-requisite will be unnecessary.
2) An "On The Job" training section, monitored by testimonials with time
limits prescribed by Transport Canada.
3) A distance course covering material not covered by the "On The Job"
section or designed to check the effectiveness of the "On The Job"
training.

Appendix C
Ice Navigation Simulator Evaluation

Steering Committee Minutes
May 9, 2002
In Attendance:
Anthony Patterson (Co-Chair)

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

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

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

6. Steering Committee Meeting – Late October (TDC host)

7. Draft final report to TDC – Early November (MI)
8. Presentation at CMAC of progress and preliminary results – Early November (MI)
9. Final Report to TDC – End of December (MI)
It was noted by the MI that a draft training syllabus in the Transport Canada format could
be tabled at the Spring 2003 CMAC for consideration of the Standing Committee on
Personnel. This point will be further considered by the steering committee at its next
meeting.
Agenda Item 6 (Simulator Demonstration). Interested members of the Steering

Committee were given a demonstration of the simulator and its performance by the MI
project leader (Klaus Hye-Knudsen).
The meeting adjourned at 1500.
Anthony Patterson James Reid

Co-Chair Steering Committee Co-Chair Steering Committee
Director Chief
Centre for Marine Simulation Transportation Systems Technology
Marine Institute Transportation Development Centre

Appendix D
To: Capt. Anthony Patterson, Director of Centre for Marine Simulation

From: Capt. K. Hye-Knudsen
Subject: Ice Experts Seminar/Workshop

December 9, 2002
As part of the Centre for Marine Simulation’s evaluation of the Transportation

Development Centre’s Ice Navigation Simulator, a Seminar/Workshop was held with a
group of people known for their knowledge of Ice Navigation. The Ice Experts
Seminar/Workshop took place at the Marine Institute at CMS from November 13, 2002
to November 15, 2002.
Participants in the Seminar/workshop were:
Captain Robert J. Parsons, from Polar Marine Consultants

Captain Ray Bartlett, from Operations Canadian Coast Guard St. John’s Newfoundland
Captain Marmeduke L. Collins, a retired Pilot and Ice Pilot with Atlantic Pilot
Association
Captain Sean Sheppard, Ice Navigator and Instructor from Marine Institute
Captain Klaus Hye-Knudsen, Simulator Instructor from Marine Institute and Project
Leader
The Agenda was as follows:
Ice Navigation, Meeting of Experts
November 13, 2002
Day 1 Background and Tour of Facilities

Presentation of Course Outline, validation of objectives
Day 2 Identify objectives that may be linked to simulation, separate

Objectives for simulation.
Finish off simulation on Full Motion Simulator.
Day 3 Prescribe simulator type for the simulated objectives, divide

Objectives into simulator type.
Assess the facilities capability to simulate the objectives.

Day 1
Capt. Klaus Hye- Knudsen opened the meeting with an explanation of how the meeting
was a necessary part of the Marine Institute’s evaluation of Transportation Development
Centre’s (TDC) simulator and that this evaluation made it necessary to evaluate the new
International Ice Navigator course.
In order for the participants to better understand some of the aspects of simulation a tour
was conducted which incorporated a view of the TDC simulator and a simulation run on
the full motion simulator.
The experts then examined the course outline to see if the topics reflected a reasonable
approach for a course designed to fit a navigator at an Ice Navigation entry level. There
was general agreement that the course outline as written was appropriate.
After this the seminar participants went through the learning objectives to see whether the
objectives would be right and sufficient for the course. The following was noted:
- Under 3.1 Vessel Types the point was made that pods could be mentioned. Under 3.2 it
was found that the different designs incorporated features on icebreakers and normal
ships, and that it could possible be split in those two distinctive parts.
- 4.6 Safety procedures during ice transit – “Discuss the following hazardous ice
conditions during transit” should include “Safety and dangers around icebergs”.
- When the topics “Navigation in ice” and “Electronic navigation systems” were
discussed, some time was spent on the matter of erroneous information and on the fact
that it is now possible, with the right instruments, to get direct information from the
satellites.
- Passage Planning, include “Historical Information”
- The topic “New and Developing technologies” is a topic that the ice experts liked in
that, to a certain degree, it forces continuous renewal to the course.
- 6.5 Convoy Operations, it was mentioned that in today’s shipping environment with
bigger and more powerful ships it is less likely that ships (other than fishing vessels)
would be in many convoy operations.
- Point 7 was found very useful. It noted that, without preparation, voyages under subzero
temperatures could be expensive and dangerous.

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

1.1 Ice physics, formation, growth,
ageing, and stages of melt
1.2 Ice types and concentrations Explain and report. Compare to other ice
information
1.3 Ice reporting, coding, and Report ice condition. Contact ice advisory
terminology and receive forecast. Report ice as seen
1.4 Signs of ice in the vicinity Simulate signs
1.5 Ice imagery Used in planning for simulation. Send raw
data to ship during simulation.
1.6 Effect of wind and current on ice Simulate leads closing relative to weather
motion pattern.
2.0 Regulations and publications
2.1 Regulations Change of ice requires reporting. Safety
control zone order. Oil Transfer
2.2 Publications Possible add on for special interest groups
see note below
3.0 Vessel Characteristics
3.1 Vessel types A number of ships for different behaviors,
equipped with different propeller and hull
types.
3.2 Hull designs Special Course for icebreaker with
simulation showing the difference in using
the different design parts
3.3 Ice strengthening requirements
4.0 Manoeuvring in ice
4.1 Approaching, entering and Simulate all. Simulate with iceberg roll.
transiting ice Safe passing distance from icebergs.
Ice navigation with other ships and land
4.2 Manoeuvring astern Simulate
4.3 Avoidance and freeing of beset Simulate with different levels, learn when
vessel to call icebreaker
4.4 Manoeuvring capabilities Different ships with different capabilities
and ship with changeable draft
4.5 Docking and undocking Docking could be simulated and thrusters
could be used
4.6 Safety procedures during ice transit Would all be part of simulation. Will be
incorporated into all problems that will be
used in simulation
For example Conception Bay ice under
pressure could be used.

5.0 Navigation in ice

5.1 Ice navigation Place the terrestrial navigation aids in
wrong position. Compass errors. Simulate
Radar GPS and DGPS with Datum
problems. Use IceNav and or similar
equipment. Datum exercise necessary e.g.
with bad visibility and land. Use of
communications of different kinds
5.2 Passage planning Simulation preparation
5.3 New and developing technologies
6.0 Icebreaker operations
6.1 Icebreaker requirement Preparation. Observation of ice. Call for
icebreaker. Recall when situation calls for
icebreaker
6.2 Icebreaker communication Use of communications with icebreaker.
Emergency signals
6.2 Icebreaker operation methods Simulate from the assisted ship’s point of
view.
6.3 Safe speed and distances Two ships in operation with varying speed
and emergency procedures. Respect of ice
6.4 Convoy operations Similar to previous operation.
7.0 Effect of extreme low temperatures
7.1 Brittleness of ships components
7.2 Freezing of equipment
7.3 Methods and precaution in de-icing
7.4 Ships preparations for low
temperatures
Note: If desired from special interest group, an add on to the Ice Navigation course could
be prepared e.g. for tank ships or barges or for oil transfer.

Day 3
The next task was to separate the different simulation tasks for different simulator types.
The project leader started with a presentation about simulators. To give the participants
who do not normally work with simulation an idea of the difference between simulators
DNV’s “Standard for Certification of Maritime Simulator Systems” was used.
Out of the discussion that followed the presentation came the observation that as the
personnel who will be taking the course are navigators, there is no need to train them in
the use of the many specific instruments you would find on a normal ship other than
special ice navigation instruments such as IceNav. The limited time allowed makes it
difficult to simulate the different tasks individually. Typically an exercise will therefore
incorporate several aspects of ice navigation, such as:
Planning routing
Proceeding into ice
Reporting while preparing the ship
Compensating for obstacles encountered
Advanced maneuvering in restricted area
And so on
Because the different aspects belong together and complement each other while time
limits prevent single task simulation it was found that a simulator for ice navigation
should be able to do as much as possible.
The second part of the last day was spent mainly on the new simulator from TDC. The
project leader pointed out that improvements to the simulator were on their way, which
would significantly change what was currently on the simulator. A few good ideas about
using the simulator for planning and sailing came about particularly when and if a new
area and new ships were obtained. It was noted that the full motion simulator, could be
used for sailing when it required other ships such as other traffic and for the section
concerning icebreakers.
Conclusion
The Project Leader appreciates the very good recommendations from the group and will
use the outcome from the meeting to its fullest.
cc: R. Bartlett, M.L. Collins, R.J. Parsons, S. Sheppard

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland Page 39

Ice Navigation Simulator

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ice Navigation Simulator

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ice Navigation Simulator

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Ice Navigation Simulator

Centre For Marine Simulation, Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial

Transportation Development Centre

under the terms of our MOU dated November 6, 2001

December 11, 2003

1.0 Introduction and Summary

2.0 Chronology of Events

3.0 Results of the Delivery of the Fundamentals of Ice Navigation Course

4.0 Overall Evaluation of TDC’s Simulator’s Capabilities

APPENDIX A Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation Simulator

Review of Ice Navigation Simulator

In accordance with the Memorandum Of Understanding between the Transportation

As a result of the review, a number of observations can be made:

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 1

2.0 Chronology of Events

On May 9/2002 a Steering Committee Meeting (Minutes Appendix C) validated the

3.0 Results of the Delivery of the Fundamentals of Ice Navigation Course

Lt. Zachary Ford United States Coast Guard

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 2

Capt. Sean Sheppard

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 3

The following is the average of the standard questions:

Reliability of simulator 4.6

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 4

Table of comments from course evaluation form (QAP-10-2)

Heading inappropriately expressed in degrees and minutes

4.0 Overall Evaluation of TDC’s Simulator’s Capabilities

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 5

contains type of features or functionality required of the simulation. The right-hand

Course Element Desired Capabilities Observed Capabilities

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 6

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 7

5.1 Ice navigation Place the terrestrial IceNav is an excellent tool.

6.2 Icebreaker Use of communications with Simulator was not equipped

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 8

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

.1 be capable of satisfying the specified assessment objectives.

Tailoring "worlds" to meet training objectives.

Realistic ice interactions.

STCW 95 section A-I/12 states that the simulator shall:

.3 have sufficient behavioral realism to allow a trainee to acquire the skills

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 9

37.3 realistically simulate ‘own ship’ dynamic in open water conditions,

Realism in the user interface.

4. Radar simulation equipment shall be capable of simulating the

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 10

STCW’95 Section B-I/12 states that the simulator should:

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 11

commercial simulator should be investigated. The ability of the simulator to stimulate

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 12

Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation

Centre for Marine Simulation

July 27, 2001

(Revised October 4, 2001)

Fisheries & Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland 13

Proposal to Evaluate the Ice Navigation Simulator

In order to support the learning objectives of the International Ice Navigator