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


Cruise Report: ISS03
(Updated APR 2012)



HIGHLIGHTS

                           CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION

            WOCE Section Designation  ISS03
  Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  09FA9605
                    Chief Scientists  Peter McIntosh / CSIRO
                               Dates  1996 May 7 - 1996 May 31
                                Ship  R/V Franklin 
                       Ports of call  Fremantle, Australia - Dampier, Australia

                                                    21° 59.14' S
               Geographic Boundaries  98° 22.37' E               114° 45.01' E
                                                    34° 14.34' S

                            Stations  92
        Floats and drifters deployed  0
      Moorings deployed or recovered  0

                          Recent Contact Information:

                   Peter McIntosh • CSIRO Marine Laboratories
               GPO Box 1538 • Hobart • Tasmania • 7001 • Australia
    Tel: (03) 6232-5390 • Fax: (03) 6232-5123 • Email: petermcintosh@csiro.au










                                    FRANKLIN

                                National Facility
                          Oceanographic Research Vessel

                                RESEARCH SUMMARY
                                    FR 05/96

                   Sail    Fremantle  1100 Tuesday   7 May 1996
                   Arrive  Dampier    0900 Friday   31 May 1996


                     Mixing and Circulation in the Perth Basin

                             Principal investigators

     Dr Peter C. McIntosh    CSIRO Division of Oceanography (Chief Scientist)
     Dr Trevor J. McDougall  CSIRO Division of Oceanography
                                      and

            Horizontal and Spatial Dynamics of Surface Phytoplankton

                             Principal Investigator

           Ms Esmee Van Wijk  Flinders University (piggyback project)

June 1996

For further information contact:

ORV Operations Manager                                       Phone (002) 32 5222
CSIRO Division of Oceanography                                 Fax (002) 32 5000
GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001                               Telex AA 57182

FRANKLIN is owned and operated by CSIRO



Cruise Objectives

• To conduct a closely-spaced CTD survey around the perimeter of the Perth Basin 
  so that the flows into and out of the basin at all depths can be estimated by 
  inverse methods.
• To deduce the importance of mixing processes in the Perth Basin by examining 
  the changes in water-mass properties as fluid flows through the basin and by 
  using inverse methods on the hydrographic data from the perimeter of the Perth 
  Basin.
• To investigate horizontal changes in chlorophyll a and phytoplankton species 
  composition across hydrographic fronts.
• To correlate continuous chlorophyll a measurements with discrete samples of 
  phytoplankton species composition.


Cruise Track

The actual voyage track is shown in Figure 1. It retraces the path of the 1987 
Daxwin section along the southern leg of the box, passing over the deep current 
meter moorings of McDougall and Toole. It also duplicates the CTD's in this 
region conducted on Franklin Voyage FR6/95. The track then turns north, passing 
over Gulden Draak Knoll and Batavia Knoll, then turning northeastwards into the 
Cuvier Basin and closing the box over the ICM6 Tornczak and Church current meter 
moorings of Northwest Cape.


Cruise Narrative

Franklin departed Fremantle at 1100 on 7 May 1996, delayed one hour due to port 
traffic. We steamed down towards the first station of Cape Leeuwin with a 
moderate wind (15-20 knots) behind us. About midnight, 1 hour from the first 
station, the wind had swung to the NW and freshened to over 30 knots. We hove 
to, doing 2 knots to the NW. Some gusts reached 60 knots overnight. We were hove 
to all next day (8/5), and many people were feeling less than 100%, although a 
new influx of bean bags helped. The weather was caused by an unseasonably-late 
tropical cyclone ("Jenna") which travelled south. The morning of 9/5 we were 
about 50nm from first station, and steamed down there in a moderating wind (25-
30 knots). Arrived about 10am and did the first station in 120m of water. The 
wind freshened again, and so we hove to rather than travel to the next station. 
Once the wind eased again, we travelled to the next station and did CTD #2 at 
about 1pm.

On Friday 10/5 the weather moderated and we got 3 stations done (#'s 3,4,5) in 
one watch. Then the fuel pump on the main engine broke about 9pm, and we drifted 
for about 4 hours while it was fixed. Luckily the seas were almost dead calm. 
The next morning we continued CTD's as planned. The voyage track was altered 
slightly to account for the lost time, reducing the number of CTD's to about 90, 
but still enclosing most of the original area. The major change was along the 
northern leg, where it was decided not to pass over the Wallaby Plateau, but 
stay in deep water to the south to avoid having to resolve deep and narrow 
boundary currents. We lost no further time due to bad weather.

On Sunday 12/5 we had a fire alarm, which turned out to be false. This is 
apparently quite rare, and no cause was found. Some of the scientific crew had 
trouble recognising the alarm as they had not heard it before.

Wednesday 15/5 we had a fire drill. Deepest cast of the voyage was here at 
station 27, with pressure of 5989db and 6150m of wire out. Started to notice a 
problem with the deep thermometers triggering at the next depth up (see 
equipment section below).

Saturday 18/5 the bridge noticed a loose strand of wire on the CTD cable about 
800m from the CTD itself; the splice was beginning to unravel (see equipment 
section). We were now out of email range, somewhat later than anticipated.

Sunday 19/5 we celebrated Andreas's birthday with a formal (black tie) lunch, 
complete with birthday cake and a present from his wife (two Mr Bean videos).

The bathymetry in this region (around station 50, western-most section of loop) 
is different from the charts by up to 1000m. This prompted the question: What 
happens to bathymetry data from Franklin voyages?

Thursday 23/5 celebrated Dave's birthday with an informal (blue overalls) 
dinner, another birthday cake (thanks again cooks!) a lei made of sampling 
bottles and a highly edible present from friends.

Friday 24/4 we started to have trouble reaching the bottom because of the 
reducedwire length. Failed to reach the bottom on 3 stations altogether, one by 
about 400m. We were very lucky not to lose the wire earlier in the voyage. Not 
reaching the bottom in the region of the McDougall current meters would have 
reduced the value of the entire experiment considerably.

Once the casts became shallower than 3000m we mounted the fluorometer on the CTD 
so that Esmee could get vertical profiles. We also devoted spare Niskin bottles 
to collecting a large volume of water from the chlorophyll maximum to provide 
phytoplankton samples.

Wednesday 29/5 finished the last CTD, giving us plenty of time to steam to 
Dampier. On the way we spent a number of hours practising picking up current 
meters for the benefit of Ian Moss, who will be master on the voyage to retrieve 
the McDougall current meters.


Equipment

The 1.7l Niskin bottles worked well, and there were no major problems. We lost 
one bottle on Monday 20/5 - it was simply missing when the CTD came out of the 
water. No idea what happened.

We had a continual problem for the first half of the voyage with two deep 
bottles apparently triggering at the same depth. This was eventually tracked 
down to a slight alignment problem in the rosette, which Erik fixed, and we had 
no further problems. The backup rosette had problems operating at depths around 
5000m or deeper, and we only used this for a few casts.

On Saturday 18/5 the splice in the CTD wire started to unravel, and we had to 
cut off 835m of cable and re-terminate it. This took about 3 hours. The cable 
length was now estimated to be 5675m. This meant our maximum wire out for 
subsequent casts was about 5555m. There were three casts where we couldn't reach 
the bottom after this time. If this had happened earlier in the voyage, so that 
we couldn't reach the bottom in the region of the McDougall current meters, it 
would have reduced the value of the entire experiment considerably. I suggest 
that if another splice is used, that the number of times it goes over the 
sheaves is logged, and consideration be given to a backup strategy for intensive 
deep CTD voyages when the splice nears the end of its expected working life.

About halfway through the voyage we received the news that CSIRO was considering 
buying new Guildline salinometers. This caused some consternation among the OMS 
people because they had not been consulted. Aren't they the local experts?
For this voyage we had been given specific guidelines concerning CTD wire 
tension. We monitored this carefully, and logged all casts fully. Wire tension 
was always below the absolute limit of 1.3 tonnes, but did occasionally exceed 
1.2 tonnes. The major factor was ship roll when the CTD was below 5000m. The 
next important factor was the winch acceleration, and the winch drivers were 
careful to start the winch slowly. We found it made no appreciable difference to 
ascend at half the usual speed while at depth, suggesting the drag of the CTD 
package is not important.

It quickly became clear that deep CTD's were taking about 30 minutes longer than 
estimated. We eventually established that the wire-speed readout was reading 
high by about 10%, although the wire-out readout was accurate. From 17/5 we ran 
the winch at an indicated 65m/min.

The colour printer was installed via Appletalk - it could not be made to work 
directly on the ethernet.

Two new cuvette caps for the fluorometer were purchased for this voyage, but 
they had the wrong thread size. The old one was adequate until the engineers 
managed to machine one of the new caps to fit. The other new cap has not been 
touched.

We were only without email for about 4 days. This was an important facility, 
allowing faster communication, and reducing the isolation. I suggest that 
consideration be given to improving this facility, so that it is always 
available. It might also be a good idea to arrange for some form of regular news 
service to be sent by email.

I found out that most of the crew phone home about once a week. It is important 
that this is as easy and cheap as possible - it might save some relationships! 
At the moment it is both expensive and bad quality. I recommend this be fixed as 
soon as possible.


Conclusion

This was a very successful voyage in terms of the data collected. A large 
section of ocean was fully enclosed with deep CTD's, which will allow the 
construction of an inverse model to study mixing processes and property fluxes 
in this region. In addition, a large amount of surface data on chlorophyll and 
phytoplankton was collected in the region of a number of surface fronts. There 
were very few problems on this voyage, and everybody seemed to get along very 
well. With the exception of the first three days, the weather was also kind.


Acknowledgements

Thank you to the two CTD watches, and to the chemists, for working hard and 
caring about the quality of the data. Thank you to Esmee for helping with the 
CTD's when needed. A special thank you to the ship's crew for their hard work, 
dedication and generosity. And thanks to everyone for also making the voyage 
enjoyable.


Science Crew                              Ship's Crew      
-------------------------------------     --------------------------------------
Peter McIntosh    CSIRO Oceanography      Neil Cheshire      Master
                  Chief Scientist         lan Moss           Mate
Andreas Schiller  CSIRO Oceanography      Ian Menzies        2nd Mate
Yukio Masumoto    University of Tokyo     Mike Culpepper     Chief Engineer
Esmee Van Wijk    Flinders University     Lindsay Cale       1st Engineer
                  (piggyback project)     Don Roberts        Electrical Engineer
                                          Yannick Hansen     Bosun      
Neil White        CSIRO-ORV               Norm Marsh         AB
                  Cruise Manager          Peter Genge        AB
Erik Madsen       CSIRO-ORV               Wayne Golding      AB
Helen Beggs       CSIRO-ORV               Phil French        Greaser
Dave Terhell.     CSIRO-ORV               John Tilley        Chief Steward
Val Latham        CSIRO-ORV               Lindsay Ballinger  Chief Cook
Kate Berry        CSIRO-DF (on loan)      Peter Dux          2nd Cook




NOTES ON ADCP DATA FOR FR 5/96
(Helen Beggs, 23 June, 1997)


Features of this voyage

The first three days of the cruise were very rough and this appears to have 
affected the data quality. The current vectors are suspect during 7 May'96/0800 
- 1500 UTC and 8 May'96/0200 - 0900 UTC due to the very rough seas. The major 
reason for data being rejected during post-processing was due to %Good being 
less than 30% in any one ensemble.

GPS "SA" degradation (see section 2) was in force during this voyage, and UPS 
coverage was nearly 100%.

A very small amount of on-station data was mildly corrupted in the top 50 m by 
one acoustic beam intersecting water dragged by the CTD wire. All but the most 
subtly affected bins have been removed (as there is no way of correcting for 
this effect).

The alignment angle calibration coefficient, a, varied sinusoidally with heading 
through the voyage, probably due to variation in the heading gyro synchro-
digital converter. Specifically, α = 0.95 sin(heading) + 1.1 +/- 0.3. The 
scaling factor, 1+β, did not change significantly with time.


1.1  Profiles integrated

• Bottom track corrected, no reference layer averaging in final integration:
• 203 20 minute profiles (-12% of voyage covered).
• GPS corrected (position-derived GPS ship velocities preferred to direct GPS 
  velocities)
• 1679 20 minute profiles (-99% of voyage covered). Use with care, if at all, as 
  SA was active.
• 562 60 minute profiles (-100% coverage).
• Non-integrated profiles (3 minute ensembles)
• All possible ensembles with best available correction (bottom track preferred 
  to position-derived UPS velocities, preferred to direct GPS velocities).



2  GPS DATA DEGRADED BY SA (SELECTIVE AVAILABILITY)

The US Department of Defence, who operates the UPS satellites, has introduced 
deliberate complex errors into UPS data. It is generally considered that these 
errors cannot be removed without extra equipment and post processing (and even 
then cannot be achieved with deep ocean work.)

The characteristics of SA errors are probably changed from time to time, however 
they usually seem to be across quite a wide time spectrum. Of most concern for 
ADCP data are the errors of order 50 cm/s over 5 to 10 minute periods. There 
also appears to be a smaller and lower frequency component, the worst case so 
far observed had a residual error of 6 cm/s after averaging an hour's data.


2.1  The implications for ADCP data are:

• individual GPS corrected ensembles (3 minute or less) often have errors of 
  around.5 m/s.
• The existence of such errors prohibits the use of some quality control 
  measures, especially of course dv/dt.
• 20 minute integrated profiles will usually have little extra error, maybe 1 or 
  2 cm/s. However, at times low frequency components of SA may cause larger 
  errors, up to 10 or 20 cm/s.
• 60 minute profiles will rarely have more than 1 or 2 cm/s extra error.
• Incomplete 20 minute profiles (low 'icover' percentage) are less reliable 
  because they are probably incomplete due to a break in GPS coverage, and data 
  adjacent gaps is usually of poorer quality. Also, the SA errors are less 
  likely to have been removed by averaging.
• Bottom track and shear data are, of course, unaffected by this. When using UPS 
  to get ship's position, these errors are negligible (200m or 300m at most).



3  CALIBRATION

ADCP water profile vectors are calibrated by being rotated through an angle a 
and multiplied by scaling factor 1 + β. The rotational calibration primarily 
corrects for misalignment of the transducer with respect to the ship, of the 
ship with respect to the gyro compass, and the error in the gyro compass. The 
scaling multiplier primarily corrects biases arising from the profiler itself. 
Both of these calibrations make a large difference to the resultant currents, 
particularly because they are both applied to the usually large ship-relative 
currents. For example, a scaling multiplier of .01 applied when the water 
velocity with respect to the ship is 6 m/s alters the measured absolute currents 
by 6 cm/s. Calibration is particularly difficult when the coefficients change 
with time, as appeared to be the case on this voyage.

Calibration chosen for this voyage:

                      α = 0.95 sin(heading) + 2.05 +/- 0.3

                            1 + β = 1.019 +/- 0.005.



4  DATA QUALITY

The data provided should not be taken as absolutely true and accurate. There are 
many sources of error, some of which are very hard to quantify. Often the 
largest error is that of determining the ship's actual velocity.

Accuracy of water velocity relative to the ship

The theoretical approximate short-term velocity error for our 150 kHz ADCP is:

          sigma = (pulse length X square root of pings per average) - 1

For a 3 minute ensemble with say 170 pings, using 8m pulse, this gives a 
theoretical error of 1 cm/s for each value (that is, independently for each 
bin).

For 20 minute profiles, with say 1150 pings averaged, the error in measuring the 
velocity of the water relative to the ship is probably reduced to the long term 
systematic bias. Of this bias, RDI says

    "Bias is typically of the order of 0.5 - 1.0 cm/s. This bias depends on a 
    variety of factors including temperature, mean current speed, signal/noise 
    ratio, beam geometry errors, etc. It is not yet possi-ble to measure ADCP 
    bias and to calibrate or remove it in postprocessing."

As well as that, there are the transducer alignment and gyro-compass errors, 
which probably have a residual effect after calibrating of roughly:

0.3 cm/s per m/s of ship speed, due to, say, 0.3 degree uncertainty and 
variation in alignment angle.

0.5 cm/s per m/s of ship speed, due to, say, 0.005 uncertainty and variation in 
scaling factor.

This gives us say 0.58 cm/s error per m/s of ship speed, or 3.6 cm/s at 12 
knots.

Other sources of bias might be the real-time and post-processing data screening, 
and depth- dependant bias.

GPS profiles

In the presence of SA, errors are larger and even very large errors cannot be 
removed by dvidt screening (because this would bias the long term average - 
there is reason to assume that given a long enough period the accumulated SA 
error is close to zero).

Bottom track profiles

Firstly note that errors arising from transducer alignment and gyro limitations 
will substantially cancel out. Normally, the accuracy of screened bottom track 
data appears to be of the same order of accuracy as non-SA UPS, that is, about 2 
- 3 cm/s for a 20 minute profile.



REPORT ON THE PROCESSING OF HYDROLOGY DATA FROM F9605
(David Terhell)

Hydrochemists on the voyage were Dave Terhell, Val Latham and Kate Berry. 92 CTD 
stations were sampled. Approximately 1940 samples were analysed for salinity and 
nutrients and approximately 1916 samples were analysed for oxygen.

The processing was performed by David Terhell. It was begun of 28/11/96 and 
completed on 22/5/97. the navigation data etc was transferred from the 
fr9605.sta file produced during CTD calibration to the hydrology .DAT files. The 
sample depths, CTD salinity and CTD temperature data were transferred to the 
hydrology .DAT files from the histcal.lis file produced during CTD calibration. 
The DO results were checked in Hobart and found to be correct. During processing 
corrections to the data were made (see below). The data was archived of 22/5/97 
and all files copied to tape on 16/4/97.

One persistent problem which had to be corrected was that rosette position's 2 
and 4 often didn't fire until the next rosette position was fired.


Stn  RP  NBN  Comments                                       Action
---  --  ---  ---------------------------------------------  -------------------
 1    2   4   salt sample taken from next deepest bottle     delete salt and 
                                                             bottle number
 2    1   2   No oxygen for bottle 105 due to analysis       oxygen bottle 
              problems                                       deleted
 3   16  23   temperature difference between CTD and         delete thermometer 
              thermometer data = 2.01 - chemistry fine       data
 3   11  17   No salt for bottle 575 due to analysis         salt bottle deleted
              problems
 4   16  23   thermometer temperatures far too low yet       delete thermometer 
              chemistry fine. Thermometers may not have      data
              been set correctly
 4    5  15   oxygen far too low                             delete oxygen and 
                                                             bottle number
 4    5  15   wrong oxygen had been deleted earlier (RP 4)   corrected
 4    4  14   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
 4    2   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
 5   16  10   oxygen high, salt difference = 0.007           delete niskin
 5    4   3   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
 5    2   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
 6   16  10   phosphate high but other chemistry does not    delete phosphate
              show anomaly  
 6    4   3   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
 6    2   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
 7    2   1   no thermometer data                            delete thermometer 
                                                             numbers
 7    2   6   no nutrient samples taken due to sampling      nuts tube numbers 
              error (see CTD sheet)                          deleted
 8   22  23   no nitrate peak detected by DAPA               edited in 0.13 
                                                             determined from 
                                                             DAPA trace
 8    4   3   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
 8    2   1   no nutrient sample taken                       delete nutrient 
                                                             tube number
 8    2   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
 9   24  23   no nitrate peak detected by DAPA               edited in 0.1 
                                                             determined from 
                                                             DAPA trace
 9   22   8   no thermometers on this niskin                 delete thermometer 
                                                             numbers
 9    9  24   salt sampled from next shallowest niskin       delete salt and 
                                                             bottle number
 9    4   3   no samples taken as duplicates of rosette      delete niskin
              posn 2
 9    3  14   no samples taken as duplicates of rosette      delete niskin
              posn 2 
10   22   8   niskin leaked so not sampled                   delete niskin
10   21  12   no salt or nutrient sample - no reason given   delete salt bottle 
                                                             and nuts tube 
                                                             numbers


Stn  RP  NBN  Comments                                       Action
---  --  ---  ---------------------------------------------  -------------------
10    2   1   pressure difference 388dbars - temps and       delete unprotected 
              chemistry fine                                 data
11   14  16   salt difference = 0.031 but on steep gradient  accept
11    2   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
12    2   1   Thermometer and chemistry data indicates       delete niskin
              bottle fired wrong depth
13   12   5   from chemistry niskin leaked badly             delete niskin
13    2   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
14    2   1   bottom cap of niskin stuck open                delete niskin
15   18   6   from chemistry niskin leaked badly             delete niskin
15    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
16   16  19   conductivity ratio recorded as 9560 instead    corrected
              of 8560 
16   10   3   CTD sheet says niskin clearly leaked - no      delete niskin
              samples
16    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
17   24  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.2 was edited into 
                                                             file
17    8  21   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
17    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
17    3  14   CTD sheet says niskin leaked - no samples      delete niskin
18    8  21   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
18    4   1   thermometers were accidentally reversed        delete thermometer
              before they were read                          numbers
19   24  23   temperature difference between CTD and         delete thermometer
              thermometer data = 1.22 - chemistry fine       data


Stn  RP  NBN  Comments                                       Action
---  --  ---  ---------------------------------------------  -------------------
20    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
21   12  11   salt difference = 0.021. suspect niskin leak   delete niskin
              as silicate trace has dog lag as well 
21    4   1   thermometers didn't reverse                    delete thermometer 
                                                             numbers
21    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
22   12  11   niskin leaked                                  delete niskin
22    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
23    4   1   thermometers were accidentally reversed        delete thermometer
              before they were read                          numbers
23    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
24   21  11   CTD sheet says niskin leaked - no samples      delete niskin
24    4   1   thermometer data and chemistry except          depth corrected and
              silicatesay bottle fired next shallowest       thermometer data 
              depth                                          deleted
25   17   2   conductivity ratio recorded as 9700 instead    corrected
              of 8700   
25    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
25    2  20   oxygen far too high                            delete oxygen and 
                                                             bottle number
26   16  10   nutrients typical of much deeper sample but    delete nutrients
              oxygen and salt show no anomoly - nuts taken   and tube number
              from wrong niskin 
26    4   1   thermometers didn't reverse                    delete thermometer 
                                                             numbers
26    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
27   19   7   Salt difference (CTD-Hydro) = 0.032. Other     delete salt and
              chemistry fine                                 bottle number
27    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
28   24  23   no 5 min wait for thermometers                 delete thermometer 
                                                             numbers
28   10   3   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
28    4   1   no 5 min wait for thermometers                 delete thermometer 
                                                             numbers
28    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
28            rosette positions 1 and 2 fired at bottom and  corrected depths
              made all niskins out by one depth  
29    4   1   niskin didn't close - thermometers OK          delete sample 
                                                             bottle numbers


Stn  RP  NBN  Comments                                       Action
---  --  ---  ---------------------------------------------  -------------------
30   20  12   Salt difference (CTD-Hydro) = 0.149.           delete niskin
              Possibly leaked
30    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
31   24   1   niskin fired at the bottom not at the surface  changed depth to 
                                                             4842 db
31   23   8   as RP 24 fired at 4842 db the nitrate peak     no nitrate result
              for RP23 was hidden by previous peak
31   23   8   salt difference = 0.078 but on steep gradient  accept
31    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
31    3  14   phosphate high but other chemistry does not    delete phosphate
              show anomoly
32   23   8   salt difference = 0.053 but on steep gradient  accept
32    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
33   24  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.2 was edited into 
                                                             file
33   17   2   conductivity ratio recorded as 9445 instead    corrected
              of 8445
37    4   1   mercury in U/P thermometer fell through        delete 12088
38   10  19   niskin cap didn't seal so it wasn't sampled    delete niskin
39   21  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.1 was edited into 
                                                             file
39   20  12   bottom niskin cap lanyard caught in spigot     delete niskin
              so niskin not sampled
39   10  19   oxygen bottle number 188 was used twice in     the correct bottle
              this station.                                  no. 186 was entered 
                                                             and the oxygen conc 
                                                             corrected.


Stn  RP  NBN  Comments                                       Action
---  --  ---  ---------------------------------------------  -------------------
40   21  23   first reading of first thermometer             corrected
              incorrectly entered
40   12   3   salt obviously wrong - trouble with analysis   delete salt
41   21  23   no 5 min wait for thermometers                 delete thermometer 
                                                             data
41   20  12   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 0 
                                                             was edited into 
                                                             file
42   21  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 0 
                                                             was edited into 
                                                             file
42   10  19   niskin not sampled as the bleed valve was      delete niskin
              opened
42    3  14   fired at 2397 dbars                            corrected depth
42    2  20   fired at 2397 dbars                            corrected depth
42            rosette positions 1 and 2 fired at bottom      corrected depths
              and made all niskins out by one depth 
43    4   1   niskin cap lanyard caught in spigot so niskin  delete niskin
              not sampled 
48    5  15   top cap of niskin hadn't sealed so niskin not  delete niskin
              sampled
49   27  12   no salt sample                                 delete salt bottle 
                                                             number
51    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
52    2  20   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
55   20  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.1 was edited into 
                                                             file
55   12  12   conductivity ratio recorded as 0809 instead    corrected
              of 9809
55    5  15   conductivity ratio recorded as 8012 instead    corrected
              of 9012
58    2  20   oxygen sample appears to have been taken       delete oxygen and
              from next shallowest niskin                    bottle number
58            rosette positions 1 and 2 fired at bottom      corrected depths
              and made all niskins out by one depth 


Stn  RP  NBN  Comments                                       Action
---  --  ---  ---------------------------------------------  -------------------
60    4   1   thermometer data and chemistry except          delete niskin
              silicate say that bottle fired next 
              shallowest depth Silicate follows trend 
              however
61    4   1   thermometer data and chemistry except          delete niskin
              silicate say that bottle fired next 
              shallowest depth Silicate follows trend 
              however
62    5  15   salt difference = 0.008 at depth - bottle      delete niskin
              leaked
62    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected and
              - no 5 min wait on thermometers                thermometer data 
                                                             deleted
64   24  23   thermometer data had not been entered          entered it
64   23  12   salt difference = 0.055 but on steep gradient  accept
64    4   1   rosette position fired next shallowest depth   depth corrected
65   24  23   niskin fired at the bottom                     corrected depth
65   12  12   all chemistry says niskin leaked - see CTD     delete niskin
              sheet
65    4   1   thermometer data and chemistry except          delete niskin
              silicate say that bottle fired next 
              shallowest depth Silicate follows trend 
              however
66   24  23   thermometer data had not been entered          entered it
66   17   6   no salt sample                                 delete salt bottle 
                                                             number
66    4   1   thermometer data and chemistry except          delete niskin
              silicate say that bottle fired next 
              shallowest depth Silicate follows trend 
              however
67   24  23   thermometer data had not been entered          entered it
67   14   6   niskin cap lanyard caught in niskin so niskin  delete niskin
              not sampled
68   24  23   niskin fired at the bottom                     corrected depth
68    4   1   thermometer data and chemistry except          delete niskin
              silicate say that bottle fired next 
              shallowest depth Silicate follows trend 
              however
68            trouble with analysis of salinities            delete all salts
69    1   3   rosette position didn't fire so depths were    corrected depths
              wrong


Stn  RP  NBN  Comments                                       Action
---  --  ---  ---------------------------------------------  -------------------
70   24  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.1 was edited into 
                                                             file
71   22  11   nutrients taken from next deepest niskin       delete nutrients 
                                                             and tube number
73   17   6   Salt far too low - other chemistry fine        delete salt
73   11  17   conductivity ratio entered incorrectly         corrected
73    4   1   thermometers didn't reverse                    delete thermometer 
                                                             numbers
75   24  23   first reading of thermometer 26038 was         corrected
              entered incorrectly
76   24  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 0 
                                                             was edited into 
                                                             file
77   14  16   niskin cap lanyard caught in niskin so         delete niskin
              niskin not sampled
78   24  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.1 was edited into 
                                                             file
78   16   2   oxygen analysis problems                       delete bottle 
                                                             number
79   24  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.2 was edited into 
                                                             file
82   24  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.2 was edited into 
                                                             file
82    8  21   phosphate high but other chemistry does not    delete phosphate
              show anomoly
82    4   1   not sampled - no reason given                  delete bottle 
                                                             numbers
82    3  14   niskin leaked - no samples taken               delete niskin 
                                                             number
82    2  20   not sampled - no reason given                  delete niskin
82    1   3   not sampled - no reason given                  delete niskin
83   24  23   thermometer data not entered                   entered it
83    3  14   all chemistry shows niskin leaked              delete niskin
85   15   4   niskin not sampled - see CTD sheet             delete niskin
85    3  14   oxygen far too high                            delete oxygen and 
                                                             bottle number
85    1   3   oxygen sample did not dissolve fully           delete bottle 
                                                             number
86   24  23   oxygen bottle broke                            delete bottle 
                                                             number
86    8  21   nutrients sampled from niskin 24               delete nutrients 
                                                             and tube number
86    4   1   pressure difference 465dbars - temps and       delete unprotected 
              chemistry fine                                 data
89   24  23   DAPA didn't integrate nitrate peak             manually measured 
                                                             and the value of 
                                                             0.2 was edited into 
                                                             file
89    4   1   no thermometers read                           delete thermometer 
                                                             numbers
91   23  12   Salt difference (CTD-Hydro) = 0.406. Other     delete salt and
              chemistry fine                                 bottle number



CCHDO DATA PROCESSING NOTES

Date        Person            Data Type    Action            Summary 
----------  ----------------  -----------  ----------------  -------------------------------------
2000-11-20  James Crease      CTD/BTL/SUM  Submitted         Submitted 

2000-11-27  Danie Bartolacci  CTD/BTL/SUM  Website Updated   Data added to website 
            I have obtained the CTD and bottle data for 09FA9605. Both files are 
            unformatted. Bottle data contains salinity in psu (needs converting) and 
            oxygen, nitrate, silicate, phosphate only and all are in umol/l (need 
            converting to umol/kg). Data has been linked in AS-IS condition with a note 
            that reformatting is pending. Sumfile will need to be created from bottle 
            file information. 

2000-11-28  Terry Byrne       CTD/BTL      Website Updated   Status Changed to Public 
            The conditions of use are not meant to override any standing agreements. I 
            have not checked, but I presume there was some formal arrangement already in 
            place, and there is no intention to vary this, so go ahead and use the data 
            in the usual WOCE way. - T. Byrne

            Terry, I understood your provision of the data to me and the WOCE WHPO DAC 
            implied that you were placing no restriction on their distribution as part of 
            the WOCE dataset. Your Marlin database embargoed it fro 2 years after 1996 as 
            I understand it. - J. Crease

2000-12-11  Dave Muus         CTD/BTL/SUM  Website Updated   Data Reformatted/OnLine
            Notes on formatting ISS3_a SUMMARY, BOTTLE and CTD files. 
            (dated Dec 11, 2000/dm)
            R.V. Franklin May 7-31, 1996
            EXPOCODE 09FA9605

            1. Made WOCE formatted files from information in Australian files: ctd_format.htm 
               aodc.txt hydro_format.htm f9605hyd.txt fr9605cd.txt

            2. SUMMARY file: a) Original bottom depth labeled "Sonic depth at bottom in meters".
               (iss3_asu.txt) Put this value in uncorrected depth slot but do not know if value 
               has been corrected per Carter Table. Do not know when bottom depth recorded: BE 
               or BO? Put in BO slot. Bottom depth for Station 6 is missing on all sources.

            Max pressure bottle or ctd?

            3. BOTTLE file: a) Only temperature in bottle file is DSRT. Used temp from CTD file 
               (iss3_ahy.txt) for nearest CTD pressure to bottle file pressure. Always within 
               one decibar.

            4. CTD files: a) CTDO apparently not corrected. (iss3_a00xx.wct) Quality code 8888 
               not accepted by wctcvt

2001-01-03  Dave Muus         CTD           Website Updated  Reformatted data online 
            Notes on ISS3a CTD file reformatting to exchange format. Jan 3, 2001 dm

            1. Could not find any instructions on CTD file name format. I used 
               "iss3a00ss_ct1.csv" where ss is station number to be consistent with WOCE file
               name format. "A01E_STN_sss_ct1.csv" where sss is station number was used for A01E 
               ctd data.

            2. Some header designations differ between Exchange Instructions and Exchange example. 
               Instructions Example
               SECT_ID SECTION_ID
               STNNBR STATION
               CASTNO CAST
               DEPTH BOTTOM
            I used Instructions since they match BOTTLE instructions and WOCE designations.

            3. CTD oxygen appears to be uncorrected. Noted in header comments.

            4. No quality code information available. 

2001-01-19  Danie Bartolacci  CTD/BTL      Website Updated   Reformatted Exchange files online 
            I have replaced the current on line bottle and ctd files with the newly reformatted 
            Exchange files created by D. Muus. All notes on editing are located in 
            original/2001.01.18_ISS3_FRMTD_DMUUS all references have been updated to reflect this 
            change, including a link to the Exchange file format description. 

2002-01-30  Danie Bartolacci  SUM          Website Updated   SUM file added to website 
            WOCE formatted sumfile created by D. Muus has been added to the website. Notes on file 
            creation and bottle/CTD reformatting will be emailed separately to meta data manager.
            Index page has been edited to reflect this update.

            No WOCE formatted bottle or CTD files exist still, only CTD and bottle exchange files. 

