Our project was structured a little differently to the other two groups, due to only having two surveying vessels available. Consequently, we began the field work component of this workshop with half a day of project planning, before acquiring 3.5 kHz seismic profiles, cores and CPTs, and then processing and analyzing the data.

Our study area was just 300 m offshore from EAWAG at Kastanienbaum. A landslide headwall was evident in the multibeam data (see Figure), but few seismic profiles and no cores or CPT data had been acquired in the area, so the landslide (dubbed “SLATE slide” by our team) was relatively unsurveyed. Our aims were to determine the lateral extent and volume of the slide, find out information about the nature of the basal glide plane, and try to constrain the timing of the slide. With this in mind, we constructed a survey plan for the two half days of data collection.

For me, being involved in the project from the initial planning stage was a really valuable experience. We had identify what our key priorities were, and then had to keep coming back to those while surveying, so as to optimize the time spent collecting data. This was especially important when we began to run out of time while collecting 3.5 kHz data due to over-ambitious planning, and was a great exercise in flexible thinking.

Integrating multiple types of data and approaches is critical to getting the full story in any geological area; and so working with core and CPT data was also a helpful learning exercise for me, because, as for Thomas and Matthias, working with these data is not a regular occurrence.

Designing a survey to investigate a landslide, acquiring data, and processing/analyzing that data in such a short time (only two days when we could have easily used one or two weeks) was definitely an ambitious project; however, I think it is safe to say that all fifteen of us learnt something new or developed a skill/skills, and also enjoyed ourselves during the field work exercise.