Standardizing ice reports - HELP

[Ken Smith]

Our (likely) new vice commodore, Rick Kaiser, and I were discussing ice issues.  One topic was the lack of reliability in ice reporting.  I told him we should make a stab at standardization.  This is a set of initial thoughts on the issue...  Please join the discussion.

The Problem.

Ice is rated with a description and a number.   The number rating is very subjective, and the condition reports are also subjective.  I would sail on ice that many would consider way to rough to sail.  If the wind is howling, snow is ok, but many would not sail.  I have sailed through standing water on the ice, in pouring rain, across and through ice chunks that would rap the bottom of the plank.  Others consider this unsailable ice.  However, our reporting system is not tuned enough to let you know that what I might consider safe but marginal ice, you might consider not worth driving around the block to sail.  "Sail-near-home-itis" leads to optimistic reports and disappointed travelers.  And the report has to be developed by a site visit that may or may not be after a sail or long walk and an extensive look at the ice.  Maybe a matrix with numbers and and a description of what they mean?  Maybe a common vocabulary?  How to report and read a report?  Consider these questions as you read this and compose your input reply.

The relevant characteristics

How big

How thick

How smooth

What surface

What snow cover

What snow texture

What bumps and striking obstacles

What other hazards
...

How big

Google Earth or other map soft ware allows one to measure and assess the lake size.  A copied and pasted image would make thi unambiguous, and allow the reporter to indicate with words or graphics what areas are sailable, etc.  Otherwise, a length and width, N-S and E-W allow an assessment of teh race area.  How big a course can be set between cracks?  Google has no clues.

How thick

DUH.  Where was it checked, and how.  The how thick is easy to understand.  There are really two issues, can I get my car and/or trailer on, AND can I sail without making a swimming hole.   This also involves ice character.  Black ice is strong.  Spring ice is thick and weak.  Snow ice varies widely.

How smooth

Big issue for discussion.  If my boat will blow backward in under 10 mph winds, the ice is very smooth. If the runner track is a continuous line, the ice is glass smooth.  If i leave tracks that look like dashes, the ice is slightly bumpy.  If I can see daylight under my runners in most places, the ice is cobbled.  If I sail and get that vibrating eye view of the world, the ice is washboarded.  In scientific terms, a sample line or two would be run, and the average depth of variation between the high and low spots would be determined.  The average (or RMS) would report the surface finish.  That is the way metal finish is specified.  It isn't easy to do...

What surface

Ice surface can be clear hard black ice, refrozen snow ice, which is white or gray, frozen snow which is very white, refrozen snowmobile tracks, which is black and bumpy, Water on top of ice, shell ice, snow on ice, slush on ice, grainy and prone to becoming slush (spring ice) or a mix... Do we have a common vocabulary to describe?

What snow cover

Basically how thick, how deep are the drifts, what per cent is covered and how hard is it.  The range is from powder that you cannot even feel, to crust that you can walk on top of or even sail on top of.  And from completely covered, to occasional 2 feet long patchs of no depth, to a surface that got a pepply texture from refrozen wet snow. Does it slow a boat?  Does it stop a boat?  Does it break a boat? Does it clog the spikes and cause me to slip and fall?

Percent coverage is analytically easy, but subjectively hard.  If moving across the ice in a straight line in any direction, snow under you for 10 of every 100 feet of travel, then this is 10% coverage.  But guess what--that is a LOT of snow to sail through, and is usually reported as upwards of 30%!  If I walk two hundred yards between patches of drifted snow that may cover 50 feet, that is 20%, but a different 20% to a surface that is 20 feet of open and 5 feet of drift.   Snow cover as little as 1% can be undesirable.  These percent coverages are typically under-reported, though everyone seems to understand the report (the mental image of the receiver equals the image of the sender).

What snow texture -- Powder, soft, soft styrofoam, hard styrofoam, crunchy, crusted, rained-on and frozen, hard as a rock, can support vehicles...

What bumps and striking-obstacles -- Frozen chunks on teh ice, refrozen heaves, open cracks, refrozen cracks with a 1 inch wide one inch deep gap, etc.

What other hazards -- Frozen debris, open water, springs and thin ice, rocks, a dam, flowage beneath, sand, ash, trash, goose poop, what?


So how does this observation get reported and communicated?  HELP!

[Ayes]

Good Morning Ken,

Nice to see you thinking about ice when it is 80 dF outside ;-)

I have two simple suggestions.  First develop a form that could be filled out by an ice reporter.  Have all of the categories you mentioned and perhaps have each different type of surface or other descriptive category on the form that could just be circled.

Second a picture is worth 10,000 words.  Take and upload photos.  A high overview if possible and close ups with something in the photo to provide a scale, a person a boot an actual ruler or tape measure.

Ski areas do daily snow reports, if there was a system in place you could compile the same type of information over the season or multiple seasons.

Ayes out

[RANDY ROGOSKI]

Standardized ice reports will be a challenge. How much detail is enough? The bigger the ice, the more the hazards and the  more time it takes to scout it all out. Some people are better at describing and writing too.

What I've found works for ice reports are these two criteria:

Is the ice safe?

Do ice sailors want to leave their boats and come back and sail tommorrow?

If the answers to those two questions are yes, the ice is fine.

Randy Rogoski
US 4192

[rpotcova]

One method that comes to mind would be something simular to the FMEA appproach.  (as in Failure Mode Effect Analysis) This was a process developed by NASA and used extensively in the auto industry to detect and prioritize process and design issues.  This process could be easily convertible to quantify ice conditions.

Scaled in 1 (little importance)-10 (very important) increments, that would weight each measurable in order of importance.  Priorities are then multiplied by an objective observation (ice thickness, snow coverage, surface texture...). End result being useful objective information that can be used to make an educated decision to whether we sail on Lake A or Lake B.

Obviously this FMEA process would need to be revised to suit our needs and its simple enough to run on typical spreadsheet software.  Even items like lake accessibility/parking, weather forecast, lake acreage, and available motel rooms could be a part of the evaluation. Results could be charted for the ultimate in user friendly ice scouting.

Does this look like something to pursue?  Does anyone know of a better system we should look at?   I raised my hand so should I work on a simple example or does someone else want to take a shot at it?  Let us know.

[miked]

Is a certain # of days of subzero C temps necessary for good conditions?  High wind?  Atmospheric Pressure?  Lots or little previous precipitation?

[DN 805]

The primary consideration is thickness of ice and the condition of the surface (rough? smooth? shell ice? soft? etc.).  Second consideration is area w/o hazards.  Third consideration is data describing any snow on the ice.  Percentage of snow cover?  Depth of snow cover?  Consistency of the snow (stiff, fluffy, soft)?  Final consideration is location of access to the ice.

 Temperatures, wind velocity, etc., don't mean a thing if the above information is not available. 

Weather forecasts for all ice sites if readily available on a number of websites.  It is the condition of the ice that is critical. 

Forget the high tech reporting.  The key is having a sailor who goes onto the ice and comes back with a reliable report.   

I'll never forget when in 1975 we were looking for ice for the Gold Cup.  A phone call to a lake in Indiana generated a report, "The ice is great!  The snowmobiles are roaring up and down the lake".    On another occasion when a regatta site was announced, I phoned the local resort to reserve a room.  The woman at the registration desk urged me to make a reservation, saying,  "It's snowing like mad!  The skiers are grabbing all the rooms."    Another time, now only 50 miles from the ice site, the car radio was blaring "Flood warnings on lake----- and streams."   When a remote southern location was suggested as appropriate for a regatta, I phoned a local marina to learn something about the ice on the lake and was told "The fishing is great.  We have a waiting list for people wanting to rent boats".

[rpotcova]

Thanks for the clairification.  As my previous message didn't mention actually checking/sailing the ice, I was assuming that to be a given.  If you do this sport long enough you'll sometimes find that the perfect ice has a few surprises that were not anticipated.

Ice is the most important component to this sport and we still do not have an standard, objective method to report it.  All I am suggesting is to expand on the "1-10" evaluation method and weigh the important items into an easy to understand result. For example, adding overnight temps and probability of snow could help in the decision making process.  It will never be perfect but it would be better than what we currently have.   Perhaps make it a simple point and click webpage so anyone with internet access can report - even from a Blackberry on the ice!

[miked]

The primary consideration is thickness of ice and the condition of the surface (rough? smooth? shell ice? soft? etc.).  Second consideration is area w/o hazards.  Third consideration is data describing any snow on the ice.  Percentage of snow cover?  Depth of snow cover?  Consistency of the snow (stiff, fluffy, soft)?  Final consideration is location of access to the ice.

 Temperatures, wind velocity, etc., don't mean a thing if the above information is not available. 

Weather forecasts for all ice sites if readily available on a number of websites.  It is the condition of the ice that is critical. 

Forget the high tech reporting.  The key is having a sailor who goes onto the ice and comes back with a reliable report.   

I think you're too quick to dismiss how technology can help you.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but isnt thickness of ice highly correlated to past temperature history for a given location?  If so, then clearly a website compiling even just that info intelligently can narrow down which sites are worth exploring on a given weekend.  Please actually try to understand what the Northwind Iceboats' Weather Page does.  It is ***not*** merely a forecast like everything else.  It attempts to further analyze weather data to correlate with thick ice / good iceboating conditions and considers weather history not just current data.  Nothing else does this AFAIK.  Furthermore, given what you've said, another thing I could do is develop a phone application that would allow users to submit reports that would include other stuff I cant get with my data stream like snowcover and hazards, then correlate that with all the other data to further improve my weather summaries' accuracy.  But please understand that NWIB weather page is *not* merely a forecast based on current data.  It is specific for iceboaters.

northwindiceboats.com

[Bob Gray]

 When I send emails to my downstate MI. sailor friends I send the following: thickness of the ice and if it varies, type of ice and the surface conditions, percent of snow cover and the variation in thickness, type of snow and if it's been sailed or not. After these variables are considered, I give it an overall rating between 1 and 10. Everyone has a different idea of what say a 6 is, but I think experienced sailors rate things pretty closely. Up here where I live we have dozens of lakes and they vary from 10 to several hundred feet deep and they freeze at different rates so it hard to guess what the change will be at certain temps in a day or so. If you live in a lake effect snow belt like we have in Northern Michigan, the forecasts are more fortune telling the science. Rating ice conditions is a very subjective spectator sport and that's going to be pretty hard to change.
                                                     Bob     

[miked]

Is snow cover good or bad. I would think bad.

[DN 805]

Iceboating is possible when there is snow on the ice if the snow is not too deep, is fluffy, is soft because it's melting.  Iceboating is not possible when the snow is too deep and when it is hard packed.

Bob Gray is attempting to explain to you that the record of  past day time temperatures must relate to a particular site.  For example, our first sailing in the Lake Geneva, WI area is frequently on Lake Como, which is 6 to 8 feet deep and freezes at 32 degrees F.  But the ice on Como can melt away at 34 degrees.
The west end of Geneva Lake   135 ft. deep, doesn't freeze until we have experienced four or five days with the temperature not rising about zero degrees F.  But Geneva ice stays even when the temperature rises above 50 degrees.    Sunlight reflects off the bottom of a shallow lake, melts the ice on warm days.  When the water is deep, this does not happen.   Likewise, poluted ice melts faster, also salt ice, etc., etc.   Infinite number of variable involved.

[miked]

Well then it would seem that allowing reporting via smartphone would be the best approach, yes?

[miked]

For ice reporting by smartphone would you prefer a couple of simple questions like:

Is the ice safe?  Is the ice fast?

or would you prefer something more involved?

[miked]

To give you an overview of what this would look like, on your phone, you'd see your current location's report, as well as the option to add your own report.  The data would also go into making the current nwib weather page very accurate.  Sound good?

[rpotcova]

Yes it does sound good.   My initial vision of this reporting system was a web based program that has about 20 multiple choice questions to answer. This keeps things standardized and objective and all answers are displayed. 

Each lake/site has its own page with the ability to add pics, maps and comments. Ability for multiple reports is a great way to compare. Obviously this can all be done via smartphone too.