Airbus A340 Plane Lands On Antarctica For First Time (indiatoday.in) 92
An anonymous reader quotes a report from India Today: For the first time in history, a commercial Airbus plane made a successful landing on the white continent of Antarctica. One of the company's A340 planes touched down on an ice runway earlier this month, paving the way for more tourism on the frozen landmass. The A340 took off on the morning of November 2 from Cape Town, South Africa before flying 2,500 nautical miles (4,630 km) to Antarctica. It then achieved an aviation first by successfully landing on a runway made of "blue glacial ice," according to the aircraft's pilot, Captain Carlos Mirpuri.
CNN reported that the historic flight was operated by Hi Fly, a boutique aviation company, and was chartered by Wolf's Gang luxury adventure camp. The aircraft will be used this season to fly a small number of tourists, alongside scientists and cargo to the icy continent. There was "attention and anxiety" in the cockpit as the 190-tonne plane approached the runway in Antarctica. Captain Mirpuri detailed how the runway had to have special grooves carved into it to allow for more friction as the aircraft landed, which would have otherwise slipped down the icy course due to its heavy supply cargo. The pilots also had to wear special eye gear due to the glare coming off the polar ice. Thankfully, Mirpuri and the rest of the A340's crew managed to land safely and they took less than three hours to deliver all of the cargo.
CNN reported that the historic flight was operated by Hi Fly, a boutique aviation company, and was chartered by Wolf's Gang luxury adventure camp. The aircraft will be used this season to fly a small number of tourists, alongside scientists and cargo to the icy continent. There was "attention and anxiety" in the cockpit as the 190-tonne plane approached the runway in Antarctica. Captain Mirpuri detailed how the runway had to have special grooves carved into it to allow for more friction as the aircraft landed, which would have otherwise slipped down the icy course due to its heavy supply cargo. The pilots also had to wear special eye gear due to the glare coming off the polar ice. Thankfully, Mirpuri and the rest of the A340's crew managed to land safely and they took less than three hours to deliver all of the cargo.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: And likely the last time (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty nifty advertising coup for Airbus (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think Boeing 737 cargo planes have landed in Antarctica; only military supply planes. Then again, would anyone outside of geeks take note of the event?
Re:Pretty nifty advertising coup for Airbus (Score:5, Informative)
wat? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That wasn't an Airbus, it was Erebus
Re: Pretty nifty advertising coup for Airbus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is news for nerds here. But actually yes, at the very least a German news portal for normal people took notice:
https://www.spiegel.de/auto/er... [spiegel.de]
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't think Boeing 737 cargo planes have landed in Antarctica; "
They might have crashed in Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2)
Nifty? (Score:2)
Cool.
You had one job ...
Great, just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)
The last spot on Earth not yet completely fucked up by crass tourism and pollution... It had to fall prey to it didn't it? Haven't human beings learned anything? Why is this even allowed?
Disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/... [cdc.gov]
A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.
Re: (Score:3)
Disgusting.
100% agree.
Re:Great, just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)
Research is useful human activity that justifies the pollution and waste left over at the research stations. Tourism is not and does not.
Also, there are very few researchers, and those who go there have to qualify for the privilege. Tourists on the other hand are like locusts: when they descend on a place, they devastate it. And all they need to justify their defiling the place they choose to holiday in is their ability to pay for the trip.
Re: (Score:1)
Research is useful human activity that justifies the pollution and waste left over at the research stations. Tourism is not and does not.
Where's the dividing line between research and tourism? What are the people going to Antarctica to do? I have a few ideas. They look around, take pictures, smell the air, feel the snow, and then tell their friends about it. How is that different than tourism? Again, this is about defining your terms. Define tourism and research in ways that everyone reading the definitions is going to be able to agree on a line separating the tourists from the researchers.
Re: Great, just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)
Tourism: looking at stuff and describing it to others so that they will want to go and do it as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Research: looking at stuff and describing it to others so that they can know about it without having to do it as well.
Tourism: looking at stuff and describing it to others so that they will want to go and do it as well.
I knew it! The Apollo missions were to get the first tourists into space!
Re: (Score:2)
Nice distinction :-)
So, is the difference due to the person's motive for their descriptions, or their ability to make the thing/place they are describing sound boring or adventurous?
Re: (Score:2)
They look around, take pictures, smell the air, feel the snow, and then tell their friends about it.
Have you never been to a place where there are tourists? Just google "tourists breaking things" or "tourists being assholes". https://www.insider.com/worst-... [insider.com] That's the first one I found, and it was enough to prove my point. You can either allow tourists in Antarctica, with the full knowledge that it will be defiled, or leave it to the scientists.
Define tourism and research in ways that everyone reading the definitions is going to be able to agree on a line separating the tourists from the researchers.
Do you really need random people from the Internet to define things for you? How about we just let Webster's do it. Tourist: one that makes a tour for plea
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really need random people from the Internet to define things for you? How about we just let Webster's do it. Tourist: one that makes a tour for pleasure or culture. Research: careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something. It's almost like there could be a committee dedicated to scientific endeavors related to Antarctic research that could determine if a particular interest is of a scientific nature or merely sightseeing.
What is the criteria that SCAR uses to separate the tourists from the researchers?
All you did in giving the definitions is tell me that if people enjoy the trip then they are tourists, but if they think it is work then it is research. That seems rather subjective, does it appear that way to you too?
We have a distinction between amateur and professional athletes, professionals get paid while amateurs do not. What's to separate an amateur researcher from the professional researcher? Aren't all "tourists" j
Re: (Score:2)
What is the criteria that SCAR uses to separate the tourists from the researchers?
You know how to use google. I'd eat my hat if there wasn't published documents describing exactly what you're asking.
Aren't all "tourists" just amateur researchers?
No. The word "research", used in this context, has a very specific definition. The person who says something to the effect of "I went to Vegas to research the best casino" is the same kind of person will claim to have researched a topic on Yout
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking that this is elitist bullshit that Antarctica should be off limits to tourism because some rando thinks they will somehow damage the place. It's a sheet of fucking ice, there's nothing we can do to damage it. If people want to go then let them go. We have treaties to protect Antarctica from pollution and there's no reason to think that the companies running these tours won't adhere to them.
Also, why should SCAR have the authority to define who is a tourist and who is doing "legitimate" resea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Facepalm.
The "garbage" and "waste" is shipped out again.
Re: (Score:2)
Research is useful human activity that justifies the pollution and waste left over at the research stations. Tourism is not and does not./p>
This reminds me of the zoo conundrum. Some people believe that zoos should be eliminated, after all, why allow the stinking masses to be entertained by the unfortunate wild animals imprisoned in zoos? And yet, as long as the zoos are humanely maintained, those stinking masses start to care about animals they never would have known about.
As far as the concept that tourists will flock to Antarctica like a cloud of locusts, defiling the whole continent, perhaps people aren't aware of what it is like there?
Re: (Score:2)
It does raise the question of who is going to set and enforce those rules? Without enforcement, the 10% or so of entitled idiots will screw things, seen it locally too often, often they can't even be bothered to think about where they take a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great, just what we need (Score:1)
Re:Great, just what we need (Score:4, Insightful)
The last spot on Earth not yet completely fucked up by crass tourism and pollution...
What is the point of it being pristine if nobody gets to see it?
Seriously, there are billions of planets untouched by your "disgusting" species.
What is the point of beauty if nobody is there to witness it?
And "Last spot" your misanthropic arse. While so many places have been damaged, the world remains full of more unspoiled natural beauty than I can ever hope to visit. By all means, protect the wilderness, but that does not mean locking it away.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point of it being pristine if nobody gets to see it?
What is the point of witnessing it when you do not publish the data and the process of collecting the data and just forget it all in a few years?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point of witnessing it when you do not publish the data and the process of collecting the data and just forget it all in a few years?
Then post your photos on Instagram, or whatever it is that the kids these days do to publish their research.
Re: (Score:2)
The last spot on Earth not yet completely fucked up by crass tourism and pollution... It had to fall prey to it didn't it? Haven't human beings learned anything? Why is this even allowed?
Disgusting.
This is exactly what I came here to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: this is a trip you have no chance of affording.
Re: (Score:2)
The great white nothing [Re:Great, just what w...] (Score:2)
The last spot on Earth not yet completely fucked up by crass tourism and pollution... It had to fall prey to it didn't it? Haven't human beings learned anything? Why is this even allowed? Disgusting.
Your disgust is misguided.
The phrase "white desert" is accurate. The camp is not on the ocean; there aren't even any penguins there. There is nothing there. https://www.google.com/maps/pl... [google.com]
I suppose that there is some aesthetic value in preserving barren lifeless white plains in a pristine condition that nobody ever sees because you personally don't like tourism, but really, there are 5.5 million square miles of Antarctica. There will be plenty of barren lifeless white plains that nobody ever sees even
Re: (Score:2)
While back I was street-surfing on Google Maps, and was astonished to discover a tent city on Antarctica. Apparently it's become a tourist destination.
[I fail to see the point; where I live, that's January.]
Antarctica is already a demilitarized zone. (Score:2, Insightful)
Should probably make it a tourism-free zone too.
Tourism can be good (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a number of posts here decrying tourism to Antartica...
In limited quantities tourism can be a force for good. People pay a lot of money, which can help go to protection efforts for a region.
It also creates a class of people who appreciate a remote region more, and are willing to donate more time and money to protect it.
If you have a place you keep anyone from seeing, no-one will care if anything happens to it - which can easily happen if commercial interests take over. Commercial exploitation is a far bigger danger of natural resources than is tourism in small quantities.
They are also already pretty careful about managing the number of tourists in Antartica, as there are already a lot of tours that skirt the edges. Land tourism is way more rare and should not impact much.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your doubts are unfounded: https://sustainabletravel.org/... [sustainabletravel.org].
Re: (Score:3)
If you absolutely must go to Antarctica, then make sure the operator is IAATO approved. Preferably go on a
Re: (Score:2)
Anything living on this planet disrupts its ecosystem. Your farts disrupt the ecosystem. The only way to not disrupt the ecosystem is to remove yourself from it entirely. Are you planning on shooting yourself into space sometime soon to accomplish that?
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some tighter boundaries on tourist behavior, but I'd start with stopping the stupid tourist behavior that happens in Yellowstone or at the Parthenon in Athens or in St. Mark's Square in Venice before banning tourism enti
Re: (Score:2)
Those footprints are a big problem around here, people leave the trail and erode the hillsides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Tourism can be good (Score:1)
For the first time in history (Score:2)
For sufficiently narrow definitions of "first time in history".
The 109th Airlift Wing out of Schenectady NY has been landing large planes on Arctic and Antarctic ice runways for almost five decades. I was involved with fieldwork in both Antarctica and in Greenland in the late 80s and early 90s - their C-130s were our usual ride onto the ice. And I've seen C141s land in Thule, which may not technically count as "on the ice sheet" - but, in practical terms, isn't much different most of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
For sufficiently narrow definitions of "first time in history".
Why?
The 109th Airlift Wing out of Schenectady NY has been landing large planes on Arctic and Antarctic ice runways for almost five decades.
A340s? I don't think so.
Re: For the first time in history (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even in the same ballpark. An A340-300 weighs almost as much empty as the C-141 at MTOW and isn't prepared for landing on rough airfields, being a non-military airplane.
Re: For the first time in history (Score:3)
All big aircraft aren't the same. Check out the landing distances and speeds of C130's vs A340's. C130's landing speed is about 105 knots and needs about 3000 feet, while A340's land at ~130 knots and need about 6000 feet. That's on standard runways, not ones made of ice. This one was about 10,000 feet long, but I think I'd still be pretty nervous.
Not the first Airbus in Antarctica (Score:5, Informative)
The Australian government has been contracting for Airbus A-319 flights between Hobart and their base in Antarctica for some years now. https://www.antarctica.gov.au/... [antarctica.gov.au]
Re: (Score:1)
Though TFA wrote it as the "first airbus ever" the story is actually about the A340. The latter weighs about 3 times as much (40t vs 130t of typical operating empty weight) so having such a large thing land safely on ice is quite an achievement compared to previous airbus landings.
Just in time (Score:2)
Covid to Antarctica (Score:1)
Bringing Covid to Antarctica when it slips through testing checkpoints.. and you know it will.
Landing is easy. Taking off is hard. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially for a McDonnell Douglas DC-10?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a link for this? This is the second time I have seen it mentioned, and all I can find is a plane crashing into Mt Erebus out of New Zealand. Is there a case where a DC-10 actually landed and was unable to take off?
Flat Earthers will hate this one trick (Score:2)
Aww, man! (Score:2)
Wolf's Fang, not Gang (Score:1)
The camp is called Wolf's Fang, not Wolf's Gang.
da plane (Score:2)
Is the type of aircraft really what determines the level of tourism here?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the type of aircraft really what determines the level of tourism here?
Kind of. If they can fly a regular airliner there, they can use existing fleets and experienced crews which will mean lower costs than if compared to weird specialized aircraft and pilots.
So if they offer it at a reasonable price, it's going to generate more demand for tourism. Like you can go there right now on a cruise, just need to fly to Ushuaia and then get on a boat for a week and it'll cost you $5k to spend most of the time puking in a bucket. If they offered the flight for a grand, I'd sign up right
Whoa (Score:2)
Historic flight my ass. That continent should be left fucking alone, and those SoBs should stop squandering limited resources like decent atmosphere. No idea why the asshole journalists still glorify this kind of "luxury voyage" activity, hope all such gushers end their lives chest deep in water on some low-lying island
This ain't cheap (Score:2)
A boutique Aviation company flew 2500 miles, offloaded cargo in three hours, and returned. It most likely flew deadhead (empty) back. The A340-300 isn't cheap to fly...costing somewhere between $14,000 - $18,000 per hour to operate. While this is a first, and they have now proven it can be done, is it sustainable as a business model? Whomever winds up onboard one of these flights as a tourist is going to have to pay through the nose in order for the company to keep these jets flying. Arguably there are
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how many people they can get to fly it, doesn't it. Of course it was empty now but if it's a regular thing, they'll have exactly as many people returning as flying in.
The flight should take about 6 hours so by your numbers that's about $90k, or just $300/passenger if they can fill it. Obviously double that to return, so it's not exactly Ryanair but still pretty cheap for an exotic destination. I've seen some ship cruises to antarctica and they go four like five grand and you spend most of the time s
Don't get your lederhosen in a bunch (Score:2)
It's Wolf's Gang, not Wolfgang.
Refueling? (Score:1)
Oh, joy (Score:3)
"paving the way for more tourism on the frozen landmass"
Because that's the problem the planet has, not enough tourism to a location that is basically incapable of having any in the first place so that we can let rich people waste gas.
Good to see the world is taking this climate change problem so seriously.
TIL (Score:2)
Today I learned ground friction is a large factor in landing a plane. I hadn't thought about it much, kind of assumed the flaps they raise on the wings provide all or the vast majority of friction to stop.
Reminds me of a really dumb discussion from people who know even less than I do about how planes work where they posit the question of whether a plane on a treadmill would fly, lol.
Cognitive Dissonance Galore (Score:3)
The cognitive dissonance is stunning... Here we are in a climate crisis (not arguing for or against), and what do we do? Oh yeah land a super big plane in the Antarctic from a company called, "Wolf's Gang luxury adventure camp." GREAT! Wonderful!
Took less than 3 hours to deliver cargo.. (Score:1)
Do the tourists get... (Score:2)
Sorry, not Antartica (Score:2)
Landing large jets in Antartica isn't anything new. [youtube.com]
While this may be great PR for Airbus we should at least leave one area of the planet as pristine as possible. Antarctica is the new "eco-tourism" hotspot and frankly, we should just leave it alone. Sure, do scientific research but let's abolish whaling "research" and fishing in the Antarctic waters of course stopping the eco-tourism cruises too.
I'm not a tree-hugger but as a species, we've pretty much fucked over most of this planet with overpopulation an
Good-bye Antartica. (Score:2)