United States Antarctic Program End of Season Outbrief Report

United
 States
 Antarctic
 Program

End
 of
 Season
 Outbrief
 Report

First
 Name

Last
 Name

Project
 Title

Event
 Number

Proposal
 Number(s)

Date
 Completed

Station,
 Vessel,
 and/or
 Field
 Site

The
  purpose
  of
  this
  survey
  is
  to
  gather
  information
  on
  the
  effectiveness
  of
  planning
  and

implementation
 of
 USAP
 science
 and
 technical
 programs
 in
 Antarctica
 and
 on
 the
 research
 vessels.

Although
 completion
 of
 this
 report
 to
 NSF
 is
 not
 mandatory,
 your
 input
 is
 essential
 for
 ensuring
 high

quality
  science
  and
  technical
  project
  support.
  The
  completed
  survey
  should
  sent
  to:

[email protected]
 with
 your
 project
 ID
 in
 the
 subject
 line
 and
 a
 cc
 to
 your
 Program
 Manager.

Should
  you
  wish
  to
  have
  any
  of
  your
  responses
  kept
  confidential
  for
  NSF
  use
  only,
  please
  clearly

identify
 those
 sections
 in
 the
 comments
 field.

If
 your
 project
 will
 return
 to
  Antarctica
  next
  season,
  please
  provide
  a
  description
  of
  any
  potential

changes
 you
 may
 wish
 to
 make
 to
 your
 research
 plan
 as
 outlined
 in
 your
 Operations
 Notice.

At
  the
  end
  of
  the
  season
  NSF
  will
  take
  the
  input
  you
  provided
  and
  discuss
  it
  with
  you
  personally

should
 you
 wish.
 In
 addition,
 all
 issues
 will
 be
 discussed
 with
 the
 Antarctic
 Support
 Contractor
 at
 an

After
 Season
 Meeting.

Please
  provide
  input
  on
  pre-­‐season
  and
  on-­‐ice
  groups
  you
  may
  have
  interacted
  with.
  Please
  rate

each
 of
 the
 following
 aspects
 according
 to
 a
 scale
 of
 EXCELLENT
 to
 POOR,
 where
 EXCELLENT
 is
 well

above
  your
  expectations
  and
  POOR
  is
  well
  below
  your
  expectations.
  Please
  provide
  specific

comments
  to
  support
  your
  ratings,
  be
  sure
  to
  include
  suggestions
  for
  improvement
  in
  the
  future,

and
  positive
  feedback
  when
  something
  is
  well
  done.
  You
  only
  need
  to
  provide
  input
  on
  those

groups
 for
 which
 you
 have
 compliments
 or
 concerns.

Page
 1
 of
 9

Project
 Overview

1. To
 what
 extent
 were
 the
 planned
 science
 objectives
 of
 this
 project
 met?

100%

75%-­‐99%

50%-­‐74%

25%-­‐49%

0%-­‐24%

N/A

Please
 provide
 a
 brief
 description
 of
 the
 science
 objectives
 for
 this
 project.

 Also,
 please
 specify

contributing
 factors
 that
 affected
 the
 completion
 of
 the
 science
 objectives,
 especially
 if
 not
 all
 of
 the

objectives
 were
 met
 (ie.
 weather,
 equipment
 failure,
 etc.).

Pre-­‐Season
 Planning

2. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Pre-­‐Season
 Planning
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this

project:

Science
 Support

Deployment

Medical/PQ

Planning

Specialists
 Group

Process

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 Pre-­‐Season
 Planning:

Page
 2
 of
 9

Transit
 to/from
 Antarctica

3. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Travel
 Process
 performed
 and
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of

this
 project:

Travel
 Services

CHC
 Operations

Logistics/Cargo

PA
 Operations

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Antarctic
 Travel
 Process:

On-­‐Ice
 Services

4. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 On-­‐Ice
 Point
 of
 Contact
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this

project:

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 On-­‐Ice
 Science
 Support:

Page
 3
 of
 9

5. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Research
 Vessel
 Support
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this

project:

MT

MST

ET

IT

MPC

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Research
 Vessel
 Support:

6. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Field
 Support
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this
 project:

BFC

MEC

FSTP

Boating

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Field
 Support:

Page
 4
 of
 9

Diving

Field
 Camp

7. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Station/Research
 Vessel
 Services
 and
 Operations
 (including
 housing,
 food,
 heavy

equipment,
 explosives,
 vehicles,
 power)
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this

project:

Accomodation

Food

Heavy

Vehicles

Power

Shipboard

Equipment

Systems

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Station/Vessel
 Services
 and
 Operations:

8. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Air
 Operations
 (Helicopter,
 Fixed
 Wing)
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific

objectives
 of
 this
 project:

Helicopter

Fixed
 Wing

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Air
 Operations:

Page
 5
 of
 9

9. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Science
 Construction
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this

project:

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Science
 Construction:

10. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Lab
 Support
 (Lab
 condition
 and
 space,
 Research
 Associate
 Support,
 Cryogenics)

contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this
 project:

Lab
 Condition
 and

Space

Research
 Associate

Support

Cryogenics

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Lab
 Support:

Page
 6
 of
 9

11. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Staging/Storage
 Space
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this

project:

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Staging/Storage
 Space:

12. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 IT/Communications
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific
 objectives
 of
 this

project:

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 IT/Communications:

Page
 7
 of
 9

13. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Non-­‐contractor
 Scientific
 Services
 contributed
 to
 achieving
 the
 scientific

objectives
 of
 this
 project:

UNAVCO

ICDS

PGC

PASSCAL

Weather

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 the
 Non-­‐contractor
 Scientific
 Services:

14. Rate
 how
 well
 the
 Scheduling
 of
 your
 field
 program
 contributed
 to
 the
 success
 of
 this
 project

(scheduling
 process,
 appropriate
 season
 and
 dates,
 etc.)

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 any
 aspect
 of
 the
 scheduling
 process:

Page
 8
 of
 9

15. Rate
 your
 interactions
 with
 the
 Environmental
 Services
 Group:

Excellent

Above
 Average

Average

Below
 Average

Poor

N/A

Please
 provide
 suggestions
 or
 comments
 for
 improving
 any
 aspect
 of
 the
 environmental
 services:

16. Estimate
 the
 number
 of
 science
 days
 lost
 due
 to:

Weather

Science
 Facilities/Labs

Antarctic
 Support
 Contractor-­‐provided
 equipment

Aircraft
 maintenance
 or
 availability

User-­‐provided
 scientific
 equipment

Other

What
 were
 the
 total
 science
 days
 allocated
 to
 this
 project
 (on-­‐ice
 time
 minus
 training
 time)?
 ________

17. General
 Remarks

18. Have
 the
 outcomes
 of
 this
 season
 affected
 your
 plans
 for
 next
 season
 as
 outlined
 in
 your

Operational
 Notice?

Page
 9
 of
 9