Sebastian_G wrote:
Very cool in aviation terms but in general it somehow makes no sense to me
Antarctica is bound by the Antarctic treaty, which makes sense 
A bit similar to the Svalbard treaty. As far as Norway goes, big chunks of the continent belong to Norway, Queen Maud land and the islands Peter I and Bouvet. Technically the flight was a domestic flight, probably the longest in the world (If it wasn’t for the “detour” in Cape Town )
UK, NZ, Australia, Argentine, France and a few others also have land there. The US and the Soviet Union (Russia) have never accepted these claims, but they haven’t rejected them either, just put them on ice (literally ) which is why the Antarctic treaty was made, making it a demilitarized zone. Later it was included environmental aspects, essentially making the whole continent a nature reserve. The Bouvet Island is not part of this, because it is further north than 60 deg S for which the treaty is valid.
Shanwick wrote:
Just another example of Norse exaggerating every metric again
I can’t find that Norse has actually communicated that, it’s all media. Norse only claim the first Boeing 787 in Antarctica. Google doesn’t find any A-350 in Antarctica (“just” the 340). This will make the 787-9 the largest, since it can take the most passengers (in theory). The only time I have seen Norse aircraft is standing parked (unused) at Gardermoen. Nice to see they get some use of them
Googling a bit further, the ones facilitating this is is the broker company Aircontact. In March 2021 they chartered Icelandair (that 767 above) on behalf of the the Norwegian Polar Institute. That was the undisputable largest (civilian) aircraft at that time Later came the 340.
Anyway, what’s cool (and surprising to me) is that huge airliners can be used for this, and they are probably the cheapest and most efficient way of getting to Antarctica. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C-130 across the globe or a 787. I know what I would have chosen
LeSving wrote:
big chunks of the continent belong to Norway …. UK, NZ, Australia, Argentine, France and a few others also have land there. The US and the Soviet Union (Russia) have never accepted these claims,
That’s exaggerating a bit. AFAIU, some of the countries making claims have mutually accepted each other’s claims, but not all, and among other countries none (not just the US or Russia) have accepted the claims.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That’s exaggerating a bit. AFAIU, some of the countries making claims have mutually accepted each other’s claims, but not all, and among other countries none (not just the US or Russia) have accepted the claims.
It doesn’t really work like that. Antarctica is governed by the Antarctic treaty. As long as that treaty is in force, then (according to the treaty) no activities supporting or denying already claimed or unclaimed land shall take place. It’s status quo as of 1958 that is in effect. The US, Russia (USSR), South Africa and Peru had no claims, but have reserved the right to make claims. Chile, Argentina and the UK have all claimed the same land Obviously they won’t accept each other’s claims. But, Norway, NZ, Australia and France are all OK.
The Treaty makes these claims symbolic for all practical purposes, but it also preserves the already claimed land. No country can do anything in Antarctica without signing the treaty, and there are no signs the Treaty will weaken or be disbanded, it’s more the opposite.
I’ve been to Antarctica twice, about 30 years ago, with ANARE, the Australian Antarctic research outfit (AFAIK they’ve changed their name since). Anyway, we went by ship, the most amazing journey I have ever done. There was quite a bit of grumbling amongst the scientists on board, as the voyage took sever weeks round trip, essentially curtailing their time on the continent. At the time, the only people flying to Antarctica were the Americans and I believe the Russians. There was talk of creating an airport at one of the Australian bases, but cost and environmental consideration scuppered that idea. All that changed at some point in the early 2000s when it became feasible to fly commercial airliners down there and land on temporary ice runways. This is what you’re seeing today. As for science: there certainly is science being done on these bases, but of course they also serve a placeholder function for the various territorial claims.
PS: I actually feel really sorry for the people who now have to fly there, rather than go by ship. While the Southern Ocean isn’t for the faint of stomach, the trip through the icebergs and the ice approaching the continent is about as close you can get to leaving planet Earth without actually leaving.
172driver wrote:
I’ve been to Antarctica twice, about 30 years ago
Cool The closest I have been is the southern end of South America (in Argentina) some 25 years ago.
172driver wrote:
rather than go by ship
You certainly can do that today also. My wife and I are pondering about next summers holidays. Probably some expedition cruise by Hurtigruten. They also have something they call The Ultimate Bucket List Expedition Cruise. It takes 96 days and goes from pole to pole, starting in Alaska. (I’m sure there are english version of the pages in there somewhere, but couldn’t find any)
The thing is, it’s still Hurtigruten, the same company that has those ships travelling along the coast of Norway the last 100 years and still do. You can go on board from any place and get off at any place (if there’s space). I’m sure there are lots of other companies going by sea to Antarctica as well, especially from Argentina. This only takes a couple of days or something. From South Africa or Australia it’s much longer. A C-130 going from Cape Town to that Troll airport takes 10+ hours. A modern airliner takes 5.
Another BBC article, this one on maintaining the runway at Rothera. It’s 900m of ‘locally sourced’ graded gravel, bound together with sea salt. There’s camber to allow for runoff, and the last layer of snow can’t be cleared mechanically: it has to be melted to avoid destroying the surface.
Wikipedia has a list of ~70 airports in Antarctica.
The British Antarctic Survey has a page for visiting pilots including approach charts
One of the books referenced is Notes on Antarctic Aviation by Malcolm Mellor (1993): scanned copy
Notes on Antarctic Aviation by Malcolm Mellor (1993)
I’ve just had a quick read of this book, and it’s a goldmine; even 30 years old it’s probably the only source for this kind of information. There is a history of aviation on the continent, comparison of aircraft, description of airports, and an examination of different surfaces and building techniques. There are many sites which are highly suited to permanent runways, but unfortunately none of them are near existing research stations. On one of the northernmost islands, Teniente Rodolfo Marsh airport at the time of writing had runway lighting, VASI, VOR/DME, NDB, fire crew, and JET-A1. Density altitude is of less concern due to the permanent low temperatures, even on the South Pole skiway at 9,300’ AMSL.
