[HN Gopher] How to Operate an Airport in Antarctica
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How to Operate an Airport in Antarctica
        
       Author : Arnt
       Score  : 268 points
       Date   : 2021-03-04 09:26 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.flightradar24.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.flightradar24.com)
        
       | jeffrallen wrote:
       | Fantastic blog series. I also learned that oktas are a unit of
       | cloud coverage!
        
         | agustif wrote:
         | I just learnt today about Okta, a Cloud Auth SaaS buying up
         | Auth0 another Cloud Authentication SaaS... So I will have to
         | now add this asterisk to my mental entry, so much for a second
         | language.. pheww
        
       | happy-go-lucky wrote:
       | Video of an aircraft landing at the airfield:
       | 
       | https://mobile.twitter.com/flightradar24/status/136633455367...
        
         | mcguire wrote:
         | I hope the pilot could make out the runway better than I could.
        
           | capableweb wrote:
           | Absolutely. Not by looking out of the windows though, but
           | because of the magnitude of instruments pilots have in front
           | of them to "see" the world around them.
        
             | supernova87a wrote:
             | But I don't think that's fully correct -- my understanding
             | was that the Antarctic runways do not have instrument
             | precision approaches. GPS etc. gets you to the airfield
             | approx. location, but the landing is done visually.
             | 
             | Or am I recalling incorrectly? I seem to remember this from
             | an Air & Space article or National Geographic or something
             | similar.
        
         | mzs wrote:
         | and liftoff: https://www.instagram.com/p/CL4kfpxjDXM/
        
       | supernova87a wrote:
       | Here's also an amusing fact I keep in my mind:
       | 
       | Who serves the route between New Zealand and McMurdo Station?
       | 
       | The New York Air National Guard.
        
       | Waterluvian wrote:
       | A twin otter seems like the right plane for landing down there.
        
         | rtkwe wrote:
         | With about 40 people coming down for the summer season and all
         | their luggage plus some equipment it's probably too small for
         | the job of the main load in and out of people. Plus it has to
         | refuel there where fuel is many times more expensive so that
         | also makes the smaller planes less economical than they would
         | otherwise be.
        
         | phire wrote:
         | The twin otter doesn't have enough range to fly from Cape Town
         | to Troll research base. That's why they use the 767-300ER.
         | 
         | They do use the twin otter for internal flights, but they have
         | to be ferried down via south america (without passengers)
        
         | nerdponx wrote:
         | The article says it's commonly used at Troll.
        
           | Waterluvian wrote:
           | Yeah. And has a nice photo. I love that plane.
        
         | nxpnsv wrote:
         | They are quite common in Antarctica for sure. On south pole
         | station it was mainly those and hercs...
        
       | laurent92 wrote:
       | > The original construction of the runway was done over two years
       | and accomplished using a laser cutter
       | 
       | We live in science fiction.
        
         | 0_____0 wrote:
         | It's not clear what they mean by this. Is it an actual laser
         | doing the cutting? Or a traditional implement guided or
         | verified by a laser (to my ears more plausible)?
        
           | stergios wrote:
           | My guess is they used something akin to a laser level to
           | identify the high and low spots. Then you grade down the
           | highs and fill in the lows with the machines.
        
         | foobarbecue wrote:
         | This must be a mistranslation or something. They would have
         | used a laser for surveying but there's no way they used a laser
         | to cut any ice -- that just doesn't make physical sense.
        
         | unwind wrote:
         | Like other commenters, I unfortunately don't think that's true.
         | 
         | The Wikipedia [1] page says:
         | 
         |  _To build a permanent airfield at Troll, the Norwegian Polar
         | Institute bought a snow groomer and a tracked vehicle with a
         | snow blower, flatbed and ice cutter. The works was organized
         | with a land-based Global Positioning System laser system._
         | 
         | So that might very well be where the idea that the actual
         | cutting was done using laser came from. I wasn't able to
         | quickly goog up some example of what it probably was (an
         | accessory on some kind of tracked heavy equipment), but perhaps
         | someone else knows?
         | 
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_Airfield
        
           | michaelt wrote:
           | They probably mean a laser-based "grade control system" -
           | such as the Trimble GCS900, CAT Accugrade and similar.
           | 
           | The idea is, instead of having the heavy equipment operator
           | move some dirt then someone following with survey equipment
           | and telling him he removed too much or too little, the survey
           | equipment is mounted right on the blade/bucket and
           | automatically gets the height right on the first pass.
        
             | jcrawfordor wrote:
             | In this video an excavator operator explains the use of a
             | very simple laser grading system:
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sklWQQGnC4o
             | 
             | And of course there are much more sophisticated systems
             | available including automated control of the blade. Pretty
             | much standard equipment on any construction project today.
        
       | underseacables wrote:
       | Related: Ice Pilots NWT was a reality show (free on prime video)
       | about an airline company called Buffalo airways in the northwest
       | territory of Canada. They fly in and out of very remote, iced
       | over regions, with VERY old aircraft, and it's fascinating to
       | watch.
        
         | mopsi wrote:
         | Flying Wild Alaska was similar, a documentary series about a
         | family-run airline in Alaska. It is a bit less sensational than
         | Ice Pilots NWT. Somewhat less "will they - won't they"
         | repetitiveness and more calm wide nature shots.
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Wild_Alaska
        
         | gkolli wrote:
         | thanks for the rec! going to give it a watch
        
         | snypher wrote:
         | Newer aircraft aren't available with a gravel kit so they
         | sometimes stick to older models.
         | 
         | http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm
        
         | thedrbrian wrote:
         | There's also Mikey's YouTube channel
         | 
         | https://youtube.com/c/MikeyMcBryan
         | 
         | Full of behind the scenes videos about the planes and the
         | logistics of their operation.
        
       | SiempreViernes wrote:
       | > Jet A-1 fuel is sent to Troll once a year in 200 liter barrels
       | aboard the re-supply ship that docks at the edge of the ice shelf
       | about mid-summer season. All of the supplies, including the fuel,
       | are then taken via tracked vehicles and sledges on a 250 km
       | journey back to the station. That long journey from _Denmark_
       | helps explain why fuel is so expensive at Troll.
       | 
       | The _Norwegian_ polar institute buys its jet fuel from Denmark?!
       | I knew they are supposed to be close buddies, but that was a
       | surprise.
        
         | sandworm101 wrote:
         | The ship is coming from Denmark. The cost of transporting the
         | fuel on that ship across the ocean is probably miniscule
         | compared to the cost of dragging it over land from the ship to
         | the airstrip. Moving heavy things by ship is remarkably cost-
         | efficient, a few dollars per ton to move something across the
         | planet. Getting it that last few miles from ship to customer is
         | where the real costs start.
        
           | tyldum wrote:
           | Exactly. I had a bunch of servers on that ship sent from
           | Norway by truck.
           | 
           | OpenStack and Kubernetes coming to Troll this season!
        
           | PotatoNinja wrote:
           | The potential additional distance between Denmark and Norway
           | is nothing compared to the overall distance of sailing
           | halfway round the globe to Antartica.
        
           | SiempreViernes wrote:
           | I mean, even sending the ship from Denmark is rather strange,
           | it's not like Norway lacks a coast. Neither is any spot in
           | Denmark the closest spot to Antarctica in continental
           | Europe...
           | 
           | Possibly the danes have the closest port that is home port to
           | an ice breaker?
        
             | Symbiote wrote:
             | Transport between Denmark and Greenland probably means
             | Denmark has more suitable shops than Norway.
        
               | SiempreViernes wrote:
               | On the other hand, the northern half of Norway is
               | basically just coast and that a lot of iron ore from
               | Sweden goes by ship from a Norwegian port above the
               | Arctic circle?
               | 
               | Then there's also all that shipping of oil that Norway
               | does...
        
               | Symbiote wrote:
               | But that might mean Norway has bulk carriers and tankers,
               | plus coastal vessels.
               | 
               | Denmark should have ocean going mixed freight ships for
               | the Arctic.
        
               | hutzlibu wrote:
               | I'd say it is likely both countries have both ..
        
           | lmilcin wrote:
           | > Moving heavy things by ship is remarkably cost-efficient
           | 
           | This assumes you have sending a huge tanker full of fuel.
           | 
           | When you have a smaller ship to send a handful of barrels of
           | fuel I guess the calculation changes. If not, everybody would
           | be sending fuel in small ships in barrels.
        
             | rtkwe wrote:
             | The ship carries all the supplies not just the fuel and
             | since the fuel needs to be transported across land on a
             | tracked vehicle it's easier to do that in barrels than to
             | have a specialty sled made and maintain a tank on the
             | slowly shifting glacier.
        
               | sandworm101 wrote:
               | Another nuance is likely environmental. They probably
               | could transport the fuel in a big tank and then offload
               | it to smaller containers, but that is a bulk fueling
               | procedure that could go wrong/leak/spill. It is
               | environmentally safer to transport fuel in closed
               | containers all the way to the final destination.
        
               | rtkwe wrote:
               | There's tons of reasons traditional tanked shipping makes
               | little sense. Volume, they're going to get quite a bit of
               | fuel but it's still a tiny amount compared to the volume
               | of a tanker. They're also sending down a lot of non
               | liquid cargo, so being able to send it all on one ship
               | makes sense.
        
             | sandworm101 wrote:
             | A bulk container would be more space-efficient, but on a
             | ship it is the mass that counts against fuel efficiency
             | rather than bulk. The price differences would only be
             | significant when it comes to loading/unloading which, in
             | Antarctica, are a very special case.
        
               | akiselev wrote:
               | The price difference comes from operational overhead on a
               | tiny delivery (of which loading/unloading is a part), not
               | from fuel inefficiency.
        
       | happy-go-lucky wrote:
       | > Before 2005, getting personnel to the Norwegian Polar
       | Institute's Troll Research Station (AT27/QAT) in Antarctica
       | involved a weeks-long boat ride followed by a 250 kilometer trek
       | over snow, ice, and rock.
       | 
       | Things were so grueling at the time.
        
         | astrea wrote:
         | I know it was probably not very romantic in reality, but I
         | can't help but imagine a Star Trek style adventure and the
         | exciting challenges that come along with it.
        
           | happy-go-lucky wrote:
           | Being an outdoorsy type, I would say such an adventure is
           | exciting and all :)
           | 
           | They approached this earthbound problem pragmatically.
           | Imagine taking such arduous journeys at regular intervals.
        
       | ideashower wrote:
       | Good opportunity to share one of my favorite Vimeo documentaries
       | about Union Glacier in Antarctica: https://vimeo.com/107231188
        
       | wim wrote:
       | Another interesting problem with the weather sometimes is "high"
       | temperatures, negatively impacting the friction characteristics
       | of the blue ice runway.
        
       | rob74 wrote:
       | What would be nice to know is if the 767 shown in the photos is
       | typical for the aircraft using this airport? I can't imagine that
       | they need the plane's passenger capacity (~200), but maybe they
       | use it for cargo? Also, if they want to make the trip from Cape
       | Town and back without refueling, they probably need a widebody
       | airplane (EDIT: according to the aircraft's page, it's even an
       | "Extended Range" model)...
        
         | phire wrote:
         | I assume it's been selected entirely for range.
         | 
         | All narrow body aircraft only have enough range to do a one-way
         | flight. The 767-300ER can land, do a return flight and have
         | plenty of fuel left over for reserves.
        
         | mattlondon wrote:
         | When I flew down to the Antarctic peninsula from Chile in 2016
         | we went on a BAe 146 I think (1) The explanation given was that
         | it had landing gear that was toughened for rough airstrips, had
         | a relatively short takeoff, and the 4 high-mounted engines were
         | good for landing in snow/ice and offered good redundancy.
         | 
         | It felt pretty cramped on the inside compared to "normal"
         | planes, especially when wearing all your cold weather gear
         | during the flight (you stepped off right onto the snow - no
         | airport buildings)
         | 
         | 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_146
        
         | icegreentea2 wrote:
         | I might be the start/end of season transfer? Wiki says Troll
         | station has ~40 summer staff (and 6 winter). The combination of
         | range, cargo, and the awkward amount of people probably makes
         | something like a 767 pretty reasonable.
        
           | londons_explore wrote:
           | To take all the cargo for 40 people to live there probably
           | involves _many_ trips of a 767 each year.
           | 
           | Just bringing in the fuel for the generators to keep
           | everything heated and lit for a year is probably the cargo
           | capacity for a 767.
           | 
           | That stuff would normally move by ship to other continents,
           | but with no nearby port, I guess everything is moved by air.
        
             | mauvehaus wrote:
             | TFA says fuel is delivered to the nearest port and brought
             | in with tracked vehicles pulling it in 200l drums on
             | sledges. The cost is commensurate with the length of the
             | supply chain. They prefer it if planes can fly in with
             | enough fuel to fly back home unrefueled for that reason
             | among others.
        
       | Quai wrote:
       | The link below is to an interview where the Norwegian King is
       | trolling(phun intended) the queen when talking about this
       | airport/science station.
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXw9jGTdBy0
       | 
       | It's worth noting that the word "troll" in norwegian references a
       | type of being in scandinavian folklore, not your typical
       | "internet-troll".
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | And where exactly did you think the internet troll's name was
         | derived?
        
           | Quai wrote:
           | Trolling, the fishing method. For me, a internet troll is a
           | person that says something provocation hoping that someone
           | will "bite" and waste time arguing.
        
             | Symbiote wrote:
             | Trolling is indeed a fishing method, but "don't feed the
             | troll" was a common phrase on Usenet.
             | 
             | Both meaning were probably intended.
        
               | ericlewis wrote:
               | I always figured it just meant Troll as in the fairy tale
               | creature who are notoriously not nice.
        
             | DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
             | > trolling, the fishing method.
             | 
             | I am pretty sure that one is "trawling".
        
               | rootusrootus wrote:
               | Trawling is with a net. E.g. commercial fishing. Trolling
               | is traditional rod/reel/bait.
        
               | astrea wrote:
               | I had the same thought, but they're both a thing:
               | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | This is a really good movie:
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trollhunter
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-03-04 23:01 UTC)