[HN Gopher] Polar Express - How Airlines are plotting a new-rout...
___________________________________________________________________
Polar Express - How Airlines are plotting a new-route to Asia
Author : News-Dog
Score : 141 points
Date : 2022-03-20 13:26 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (edition.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (edition.cnn.com)
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| I would just cancel the flight. Helsinki Tokyo seems like a very
| unpopular route
| chinathrow wrote:
| Flying Finnair, you even get a North Pole Flyover Certificate :)
|
| https://www.finnair.com/en/bluewings/world-of-finnair/flying...
| heikkilevanto wrote:
| Reminds me of a trick question from the time Finnair started to
| fly over the pole: Once there was so much demand, that they had
| to fly with two planes. They flew side by side, directly over
| the pole. So one of them crossed the international date line
| and the other did not. How come they landed on the same date?
| scatters wrote:
| The IDL isn't the only line of longitude where the date
| changes; there is another, the line of midnight. Either one
| plane crossed each, putting both on the next day, or one
| crossed both, with opposite sense.
| [deleted]
| dmichulke wrote:
| If you fly over the pole you basically cover 180 degrees of
| longitude, and it matters little whether you take the 180
| that cross the date line or the 180 degrees that don't.
|
| Crossing the date line is just an artifact of the singularity
| at the pole.
| Merad wrote:
| The article contradicts its own title. This isn't a new route,
| the same polar route was used 35 years ago up until the cold war
| ended and they were allowed to overfly Russian airspace.
| eesmith wrote:
| They weren't flying ETOPS-300 35 years ago.
|
| > The new Arctic route, however, flies over very remote areas,
| where airports are few and far between. As a result, the
| airline had to apply for an extension of that protocol to 300
| minutes, meaning the Airbus A350-900s it uses to fly to Japan
| can now stray as far as five hours away from the nearest
| airport, while still meeting all international regulations and
| safety protocols.
| skybrian wrote:
| The details are different enough that it's arguable. Before
| there was a stop in Anchorage, and they presumably didn't fly
| two-engine aircraft on this route before.
| yborg wrote:
| The route originally was flown by 3 or 4 engine aircraft so a
| single engine failure still left you with at least 2. They are
| now flying it with an A350 twin-engine. Worst case you are 5
| hours from a landing site with one engine.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Which is _at least_ as safe and probably much safer.
| humanistbot wrote:
| To me, "plotting a new route" means they are changing how they
| get from A to B.
|
| I am a passenger in a car with a friend, carpooling to work. I
| say, "it looks like there is a wreck on the highway in a few
| miles, want me to find a new route to work?" That makes perfect
| sense. It doesn't matter if my friend and I have taken this
| alternate route before. It means we are changing our plan.
| ck2 wrote:
| Is that going to stomp on the accelerator for climate change to
| have increased jet traffic burning fuel near/over the pole?
|
| This war might be going on for the rest of the decade, has there
| ever been that much traffic over the pole that we know for sure
| what will/won't happen?
| late2part wrote:
| We do not know for sure what will/won't happen.
| vaylian wrote:
| This is a good point, because the arctic is more severely
| affected by greenhouse gases than other regions:
| https://council.science/current/blog/climate-explained-why-i...
|
| Having an increased local greenhouse emission in that area
| could accelerate the loss of ice.
| nuccy wrote:
| Since some European counties now considers recovery of nuclear
| power [1], the overall emissions will likely actually decrease,
| even despite this increase due to longer flightroutes. Fuel
| prices also rise, which yield less driving.
|
| 1. https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-delays-nuclear-
| phase...
| emteycz wrote:
| These planes however might have enough measurable influence
| on the local microclimate that may increase the rate of
| methane leaks. I haven't checked the numbers though.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Aviation emissions are around 2% of total emissions (but have a
| stronger effect on a per-ton basis, so might be 5% of total
| effect). These routes are a tiny, tiny slice of the aviation
| sector.
| vaylian wrote:
| But anyone taking such a plane trip will exceed their own
| carbon budget for that year. We really need to rethink
| aviation and we really need to reconsider how much of it is
| actually needed. I would not be surprised if 99% of all
| flights could be eliminated if we accepted living in a slower
| world.
| rblatz wrote:
| I'm unaware of a specific carbon budget that I am supposed
| to be following.
| mantas wrote:
| My bet is on flying becoming much more expensive. Which
| will fix the carbon budget issue.
| Svip wrote:
| SAS was the first airline to introduce a polar route in 1957 to
| avoid Soviet airspace, making a stop in Alaska on its way to
| Japan.[1]
|
| [1] https://airwaysmag.com/today-in-aviation/worlds-first-com-
| tr...
| version_five wrote:
| That article seems to be saying that they introduced the route
| to save time vs a longer, unspecified route - unless I missed
| it, I didn't see anything about soviet airspace.
|
| Flying from CPH to HND via Alaska adds almost 2300 miles vs
| flying direct over Russia:
|
| http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=cph-hnd;+cph-anc-hnd
| Svip wrote:
| The Soviet blockage was a motivation for exploring the polar
| route rather than a direct route through Russia and China,
| since both of those airspaces were closed.[1] While it turned
| out to be even shorter, it wasn't a route without
| difficulties, as emergency landings would prove very
| difficult compared to over south Asia.
|
| [1] https://www.primidi.com/scandinavian_airlines/history/tra
| ns_...
| version_five wrote:
| Thanks for the link. Also, I was just playing with routes,
| and it looks like a route (that I roughly constructed)
| under russia is still 100s of miles shorter than through
| Alaska (for the hypothetical CPH-HND route). I don't know
| if there are other issues with flying over any of those
| countries. And maybe with Alaska as a hub, it could end up
| being more efficient to fly there and then switch and
| onward to eastern Asia, although I thought that newer
| planes were favoring direct routes rather than huge planes
| between hubs, e.g. the A350 vs A380.
|
| Not to mention, historically people who don't have to often
| avoid connecting in the US because I think there is / was
| an extra visa burden, even if it's just for transit. I
| think many people might avoid a route that makes them enter
| the US, though mayb things have changed and it's less of
| hassle.
|
| http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=cph-ist-gyd-ala-pek-hnd;+cph-
| an...
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Early planes like the 707 could not make it all the way
| to Asia in one go, so the stop in ANC was necessary. It's
| the largest airport for hundreds of miles in any
| direction.
|
| That route also goes through the PRC which was closed for
| a few decades to outside airplanes as well. And some of
| the other countries on the map were part of the USSR as
| well.
| logbiscuitswave wrote:
| The article mentioned flying under Russia would be a
| longer distance but could be faster with favorable wind
| conditions. I'm guessing they are leaning toward more
| predictable conditions with their chosen route.
| acwan93 wrote:
| Does this mean Anchorage's airport is going to get increased
| traffic again? I'd imagine planes today have the range to not
| need a stopover compared to the Cold War era.
| guipsp wrote:
| While it isn't needed, I do imagine for western europe is
| might be worth it to stop over _somewhere_ , in order to be
| more cost-efficient
| ozim wrote:
| To be cost efficient I bet it would be "not stopping".
| filereaper wrote:
| I wonder how many direct routes just aren't possible anymore as
| they can't fly over Russian airspace and can't fit within ETOPS
| safety margins.
|
| We had our direct flight from EWR-BOM cancelled due to the
| current issues.
| megablast wrote:
| Of course, ewr to bom. Everyone knows those codes.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| It's been interesting to check the situation occasionally on
| sites like flightaware. Definitely a lot of traffic rerouting
| through Turkish airspace.
| leoedin wrote:
| Newark to Mumbai, for those that don't memorise airport codes.
| fortran77 wrote:
| A flight I took last week, TLV->SFO went within 20 miles of
| Ukraine -- it usually flew right over it. Today I'm on the flight
| back, and I've heard that they will be rerouting even further,
| and add about 25 minutes to the flight plan.
|
| (Here's the old route: https://onemileatatime.com/el-al-sfo-tel-
| aviv-flight/)
| trhway wrote:
| Still too close. About a week ago a stray huge supersonic drone
| flew out of Ukraine over Romania and crashed in Slovakia if I'm
| not mistaken.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Your "huge supersonic drone" is in reality a subsonic one,
| that's smaller than an F16 and flies no higher than 19,700ft
| while a typical airliner cruises at 35,000 to 41,000ft
| trhway wrote:
| It is huge by drones standards. It shows that it is easy to
| miss a missile or a plane in the air there. Russia attacked
| targets 20 km from Poland border. It is just a bit more
| than a minute of flying of a transonic plane and even less
| for a high-speed missile. 60-80 km is inside a normal
| combat range for S-300 air-defense system. The point is
| that 45 miles from the border you can still easily happen
| to step into a combat zone and get into a path of a plane
| running and maneuvering away from a missile or a missile
| chasing or even lost/reacquired target. The next link
| illustrates dangers of flying even 300 kilometers away from
| firing air-defense systems even during the peace time
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812
| tomaskafka wrote:
| Zagreb, Croatia: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
| europe-60709952.amp
| jacquesm wrote:
| Too close for comfort, you really don't want to be on the next
| MH-17, and I _really_ would not put it past Russia to pull
| stunts like that again. The safe range from any airspace that
| has Russian controlled hardware in it is roughly the range of
| their AA missiles.
| rwmj wrote:
| Should we be concerned about ETOPS (colloquially "Engines Turn Or
| Passengers Swim") being extended to 300 minutes? That's up to 5
| hours of hand-flying a jet with a failed engine.
| turrican wrote:
| In most or all modern airliners, the autopilot can be re-
| engaged after an engine failure.
|
| Certainly still stressful, but they don't need to hand-fly it.
| Idiot211 wrote:
| You wouldn't need to hand-fly in most instances, Autopilot will
| remain on and is more than capable of dealing with single
| engine operations on dual engine aircaft.
|
| Of course it's always an issue if an engine does fail, but
| ETOPS as a certification is there to ensure that airplanes and
| pilots are not put under unreasonable amounts of stress or
| issue if and when an engine fails over-water.
| mikeodds wrote:
| Fun fact you will also get a higher dose of radiation taking
| North Pole routes
| mullingitover wrote:
| How many bananas would the dose be equivalent to?
| _jal wrote:
| Approximately one half of a giraffe.
| [deleted]
| layer8 wrote:
| So... half a banana?
| https://www.flickr.com/photos/142588576@N03/37705075472
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Can't believe this just occurred to me now, but do passengers
| on the polar route ever get good views of the Northern Lights?
| [deleted]
| Hallucinaut wrote:
| I've seen them on a flight before quite some distance from
| the north pole. I am not 100% certain on the flight but I
| think it was a Norwegian Air Dreamliner flight from London to
| New York, which still goes reasonably far north.
| jfk13 wrote:
| We had a spectacular view of them a few years ago on a
| flight from Portland (OR) to London.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| United forced the window shades closed on the 787 trips I
| took over the arctic circle. Couldn't even see them if you
| wanted to.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Even the regular not-quite-north-pole-but-over-65-north are
| more than good enough. In fact, since the aurora is an oval,
| it's _better_ to be a bit further south than at the pole. Not
| sure which the best latitude is, but guessing it 's arund 70
| north or so.
| hectormalot wrote:
| I've once had an amazing view on the northern lights flying
| icelandair. Crew went around waking people up so they could
| see it.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Fun fact you will also get a higher dose of radiation taking
| North Pole routes
|
| It only matters for _very_ frequent flyers (i.e. people who put
| in almost as many hours as flight crew).
|
| For your average Joe that barely flies much, it won't make any
| difference.
| type0 wrote:
| it does matter for the airplane staff
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > it does matter for the airplane staff
|
| Yes it does, but you don't need to worry about that.
|
| There are already procedures in place for "normal"
| operations.
|
| It only needs a few tiny changes to take into account the
| arctic route, and I'm sure all the airlines have already
| done that.
|
| Basically they only need to tweak shift rotas a little. For
| most airlines you won't even notice the impact on flight
| scheduling.
| Tepix wrote:
| That depends on the airline of course
| chinathrow wrote:
| Yeah but this should be tracked by airlines, if I recall
| correctly.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Pretty sure the airplane will, not the passengers inside.
| mikekij wrote:
| The people inside will absolutely receive a larger radiation
| dose. A thin metal shell does not block a large percentage of
| cosmic radiation.
| fosk wrote:
| I wonder if planes could be built in such a way to include
| two sheets of outside layer, with a gas (can a gas be used
| to shield radiation?) in between those sheets to shield the
| passengers from outside radiation.
|
| Or maybe use a polyethylene layer?
| roywiggins wrote:
| Cosmic radiation will penetrate anything that isn't,
| like, a good-size chunk of lead.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| The bulk of the radiation are cosmic rays or things
| showered from them. Shielding isn't practical.
|
| But also, on the scale of things to worry about in life,
| this is way down there.
| paxys wrote:
| So will taking a CT scan or eating a banana or some nuts. That
| statement is meaningless unless you can quantify it.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Good. Imagine you're a Russian political refugee. You don't want
| to fly over Russian airspace and have your plane forced to land
| by Russian MIGs.
| Lordarminius wrote:
| >Imagine you're a Russian political refugee. You don't want to
| fly over Russian airspace and have your plane forced to land by
| Russian MIGs.
|
| Like the US doesn't do the same or worse ?
| int_19h wrote:
| Not to Russian political refugees.
| tormock wrote:
| > You don't want to fly over Russian airspace and have your
| plane forced to land by Russian MIGs.
|
| Can't they just ask like the US Government does?
|
| I.E.: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/03/edsn-j03.html
| danuker wrote:
| I am appalled. Not very surprised, but still appalled.
| tormock wrote:
| It's one of the 3 things that Obama did (or didn't do) that
| disappointed me the most.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Has that ever happened before? Belarus, sure, it did happen,
| but what about Russia?
| regnull wrote:
| I guess we don't want to wait to find out.
| ciabattabread wrote:
| How do all these new polar routes affect the workload of the
| people staffing our Arctic radar stations, if at all?
| ptero wrote:
| If you mean en route radars, those should not be affected.
| Those are big rotators that work the same, 24x7, regardless of
| how many planes are in the area of the coverage.
| nabla9 wrote:
| No. Civilian aircraft have transponders on. They can be
| identified easily.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > How do all these new polar routes affect the workload of the
| people staffing our Arctic radar stations, if at all?
|
| If you are referring to the people doing the radio work,
| through the magic of HF radio they sit in a nice warm office in
| Ontario, Canada.
|
| I doubt it will increase their workload much as its not a busy
| route and there's not much ATC to do given the sparse nature of
| the region. Its more of a monitoring service per-se.
|
| P.S. They are not "new" routes. They've been around for
| decades, just lost popularity due to better options.
| rconti wrote:
| I thought Russia charged huge fees for airlines to fly through
| their airspace. Apparently that's not true anymore, but this
| BusinessInsider BlogPostThing has a lot of interesting history I
| wasn't aware of.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-uses-airspace-restric...
| dcanelhas wrote:
| I wonder if one could build a couple of aircraft carrier for
| commercial airliners and post them out in the Pacific somewhere
| to get shorter ETOPS-compliant flight paths.
|
| I also wonder how much fuel is spent carrying fuel and if
| emissions wouldn't be lower if they would fly shorter legs on
| fumes and do frequent refueling stops.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| It's not as if the navy airplanes that take off and land from
| carriers are standard issue planes. There are very specific,
| pretty risky tech that goes into each catapult launch, arrested
| landing, etc. Doing so in an airliner full of passengers would
| be too risky in my view.
|
| Not to mention the size of aircraft carrier that would be
| required to land even a 737.
| weberer wrote:
| There is no possible way that a commercial airliner can land on
| an aircraft carrier.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| They can definitely touch down on one. They just can't also
| come to a stop on the same one.
|
| Though if you fitted a tail hook to a 747, probably _some_ of
| that 747 could be said to have landed there. Maybe a few
| passengers too, and you could claim the fastest
| disembarkation speeds for them too!
| thombat wrote:
| Minimum runway length quoted for Boeing 777 take-offs is 2500m,
| plus a 240m runway end safety area (a sandpit it can plow into
| if the takeoff is aborted without remaining space to halt). On
| an aircraft carrier this might be shortened a little since the
| ship can steam into whatever wind is present, but compare that
| to the 333m long flight deck on the new Gerald Ford class
| aircraft carriers and the impossibility is plain to see.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Also the aircraft landing on a carrier have tail hooks to
| stop themselves and an undercarriage that is designed for
| those stresses.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And they don't weigh 200 tons...
| mrec wrote:
| I wonder what the limits are on how far something like
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk could be
| scaled up.
| jacquesm wrote:
| No.
|
| Really, I have no idea if this comment was in jest or halfway
| serious but there isn't any way passenger planes will _ever_
| land on any of the existing aircraft carriers. Width, Runway
| length, arrestor strength, inability to do cat launches with
| something that heavy and so on. It isn 't going to happen.
| jeromegv wrote:
| That's when you know the technical conversation in this
| thread will go nowhere. That's the solution? Aircraft
| carriers? Really? Some tech people do have a strong sense of
| entitlement about how easy some problems are to solve.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Landing a passenger jet on an aircraft carrier really would
| be "moving fast and breaking things".
| twoneurons wrote:
| supernova87a wrote:
| I don't know if any others of you are of a certain age and
| remember having to fly through Anchorage in your youth... Back
| when DC10s either couldn't make it all the way nonstop, or for
| cost reasons a stopover in AK made it marginally profitable.
| reaperducer wrote:
| I still use "borrowed" Northwest Orient flatware.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-20 23:00 UTC)