Airbus: an international air transportation systemfor Antarctica

PHILIP M. SMITHOffice of Polar Programs

National Science Foundation

JOHN B. DANAAntarctic Development Squadron Six, U.S. Navy

The concept of an international antarctic airtransportation network, or airbus system, has beenadvanced a number of times (Robin, 1968; Smith,1970). This article presents the concept and ob-jectives of such a network, reviews its advantagesfor scientific research, and discusses internationalpooling and scheduling of national logistics re-sources to achieve the airbus system objectives.

Objectives and concept

Objectives of the airbus system are to ease re-search by (1) providing intercontinental and intra-continental access to all parts of Antarcticathroughout the austral summer for scientists andtechnical experts from all nations, (2) providingintercontinental transportation (luring the australwinter to selected locations on the continent, and(3) enhancing cooperation among nations signa-tory to the Antarctic Treaty.

These objectives are to be realized through pool-ing and common scheduling of aviation resources.The LC-130 Hercules, together with such short-range, ski-equipped aircraft as the de HavillandTwin Otter, have revolutionized air travelthroughout the vast expanses of Antarctica. TheHercules operates not only from prepared landingareas but also from unprepared open-field locationson the icecap or on ice shelves, placing scientistsand their camps in remote areas (fig. 1). Thisflexibility has attracted many polar experts whopreviously were unable to work in Antarctica. Ina smaller way, the Twin Otter has the same flexi-bility as the Hercules.

The even greater flexibility resulting from a con-tinent-wide airbus system would serve as a catalyst

for greater international cooperation for theachievement of common scientific goals.

Outer terminals

At present, outer terminals to Antarctica areChristchurch in New Zealand, Punta Arenas inChile, and several airfields in southern Argentina.South Africa and Australia also could serve asjumping-off points, but development of these air-links has been limited by flight facilities at theantarctic end, terminal weather forecasting, flightsafety, distance, and other considerations.

From New Zealand, entry is through the U.S.McMurdo Station, where extensive facilities areavailable to receive and, to some extent, maintainaircraft, both wheeled and ski-equipped. McMurdoalso can house and subsist incoming passengers andhandle cargo. At present, McMurdo is the onlystation in Antarctica with such a complete rangeof services.

The other generally feasible intercontinental ap-proach is from South America, with flights termi-nating at the Argentine Marambio Station on Sey-mour Island (64° 17'S. 57° 45'W.) on the Antarc-tic Peninsula. At present, facilities on SeymourIsland are not adequate for large-scale intercon-tinental air operations such as those conducted atMcMurdo. Argentine Air Force C-130s (withoutskis) fly from and to Buenos Aires about once amonth. Smaller planes have been flown to severalstations, including the U.S. Palmer Station, on theAntarctic Peninsula. It is feasible to build an en-larged facility on Seymour Island, and Argentineantarctic authorities are exploring ways of up-

16 ANTARCTIC JOURNAL

grading the present runway facilities. The U.S.Siple station and the British station at Halley Bayare only 900 miles ('/2 hours of flight time byLC-130) from Seymour Island (fig. 2).

From these intercontinental terminals, most sta-tions in Antarctica could receive air service throughinauguration of the airbus system. The buildingof aviation support facilities at Molodezhnaya andHalley Bay would provide an almost perfect netof major terminals, as shown in fig. 2. The systemwould then require initiation of a periodic inter-station service among the major terminals andestablishment of feeder lines to the other stationsand to field locations.

Prepared skiways criticalUsing Hercules planes, the minimum large intra-

continental terminals needed to support the feedersare Seymour Island (Argentina), Halley Bay(United Kingdom), Molodezhnaya (Soviet Union),and McMurdo (United States). Prepared skiwaysare critical to economical, near-gross-weight use ofski-equipped planes; and runways for wheeledoperations, which allow even greater payloads, aredesirable wherever they can be developed on landor hard, smooth ice. These four stations have de-veloped facilities or have the necessary character-istics for operation of large airplanes.

The intracontinental terminals would serve aspoints from which other aircraft, e.g., twin-engineand smaller four-engine planes and helicopters,could economically provide air service to all parts

of Antarctica. The capabilities of these aircraft aresuch that the feeder service—operating among thecentral terminals and the other antarctic stationsand field locations—could be provided easily. Forexample, scientists and logistics personnel deliveredto Seymour Island by Argentina, the United King-dom, or Chile could be moved subsequently tovirtually any location on the Antarctic Peninsulaby smaller planes or helicopters. Or, scientists de-livered to Molodezhnaya by way of McMurdo (byNew Zealand and the United States) could be fer-ried to Syowa and Mawson with little difficulty,using air flight services now possessed by the SovietUnion and Australia.

Advantages to scienceAdvantages of the airbus system to the antarctic

sciences are numerous. The system would facilitateaustral summer research by placing investigators—especially schedule-sensitive geologists, glaciologists,and biologists—in the field on schedules that permitbest use of their time. For some portions of thecontinent, a year-round access may be feasible. Thisaccess would aid special studies in the atmosphericsciences at locations such as Siple and Dumontd'Urville. Equally important is the prospect ofplacing scientists in the pack ice, a region to whichthey could deploy by aircraft, surface effect vehicles,or other transport means. Remote sensing studies,which require both aircraft and trained observers,would be facilitated by development of the con-tinent-wide network of aviation support facilities.

Figure 1. At Wetmore Glacierin early November 1969, aU.S. Navy LC-130 idles whileSeabees and U.S. GeologicalSurvey topographers erect a

Jamesway hut.

January-February 1973 17

The airbus system would encourage internationalcooperation in research and data exchange bybringing scientists into contact with their interna-tional colleagues.

Implementation of the airbus system

The aviation assets presently available in Antarc-tica are listed in table 1. We feel that partial shar-ing of these resources for the flight support of allscientists in Antarctica would not put an undueburden on the resources of any nation, nor wouldestablishment of fueling and aircraft servicing cap-abilities be a burden. These resources could bedeveloped systematically over a period of severalantarctic seasons. Each nation could concentrateon the development of its own capability in accord-ance with an agreed plan.

Weather data collection and processing, togetherwith an improved international communicationsfacility, would be required to operate the airservices and to provide for the safety of planes andpassengers. Further, more common fuel and fuelingsystems would he required, as would coordinatedcommunication and aviation procedures. The keyto the system is the collective, or pooled, value ofnational assets and an agreed schedule.

Once the antarctic facilities were established, theoverall transportation system could be initiated.For example, on a somewhat idealized schedule, anLC-130 of the United States program could operateamong major antarctic terminals as shown in table

Table I. Aviation assets available to antarciric expeditions.Argentina 2 Navy helicopters

2 Air Force helicoptersI l)l-lC-2P-03 Air Force airplane (ski)C-130 Air Force airplane (wheel)I F-27 Air Force airplane (wheel)I Twin Otter airplane (ski)1 Pilattis Porter airplane (ski)

Australia .. ......... .S Hughes 369(a) 500-series helicopters1 Pi In (us Turbo Porter type airplane

(ski)Chile ............... 2 "Bell" 47-J helicoptersFrance ............. I Alouctte II helicopter French Air

ForceJapan .............. 2 Sikorsky S-61A helicopters

I "Bell" 476A helicopterNew Zealand ...... . RNZAF C-130 Hercules (wheel)U.S.S.R. ............1 IL-14 airplane (ski)

4 AN-2 airplane (ski)2 MI-S helicopters

United Kingdom . . . 2 Whirlwind IX helicoptersI de Havilland Turbo-Beaver (ski)I (IC Havilland Twin Otter (ski)

United States ...... . 2 ski-equipped Hercules6 UH-IN helicopters

Other helicopters as requiredC . 141 airplane (wheel only)

Source: Treaty exchange information (includes helicoptersoperating from ships).

2. Scientists delivered to any location, or pickedup for further transport, could be placed in fieldlocations by other aircraft or returned to centralterminals for further transportation homeward, orto other stations or field locations.

A more complete primary station network wouldinclude an intracontinental terminal on the WilkesCoast, with periodic flights to that terminal as wellas those identified in table 2. Katabatic winds andterrain combine forces in that region to challengeaircraft operations. There are large sastrugi. Loca-tions free of sastrugi are often inland, making re-fueling difficult. Winds have damaged aircraft usedby Soviet and Australian expeditions. An intra-continental terminal in this region is desirable andshould be the subject of a special study by thenations with operating experience in the region.

International discussion

The proposed airbus system has been discussedat two recent international meetings. The TwelfthMeeting of the Scientific Committee on AntarcticResearch held in Canberra in August 1972 recom-mended that the matter be considered by the con-tracting parties to the Antarctic Treaty. At theSeventh Consultative Meeting of the AntarcticTreaty governments in Wellington, October 30 toNovember 10, 1972, the airbus system receivedwidespread and beneficial review. These discussionsresulted in the following recommendation:

Recommendation \'ll-SCooperation in Transport

The Representatives,Recognizing that the relative inaccessability of many

regions of the Antarctic Treaty Area creates special trans-port problems:

Table 2. Schedule for C. 130 operating among main terminalsin Antarctica.

Distancea Flht lla psedDepart—Arrive—(n. mi.) timebtime

NIc\Ium-(loOSOOc Pole10507302:502:50Pole1200MOb)-17001 .3 II59:00

dcihnayaMob-0800Halley13001,365529:00dezlmnayadBayHalley Bay 1100Seymour17209013:2033:20

IslandSeymour0800Pole13151,5615:4553:45IslanildPole1115McMurdo17157302:5057:45a Along great circles.b Assuming 270 knots ground speed, no wind, augmented

crew.c All times are local McMurdo Station time.d Overnight crew rest.

18 ANTARCTIC JOURNAL

SOUTH ORKNEYISLANDS

Bellingauzen (USSR)Capitan Arturo Prat. (Ch.)

11X660 Seymour I. (Arg.)

Palmer (USA)

Ushuaia

Sanae (RSA(

cTNovoIazarevska

(USSR)

,36S

ZGeneralBay

(UK)

Bay (Arg.)

y

/

Showa (Jap.)Molodezhnaya (USSR)

,,X\ '$ Mawson (Aunt.)

Davis (Aunt.)

Siple(USA) Amundsen-Scott

ple

Byrd US South Pole (USA)

South Po

sen tt

Russkaya (USSR) 880

0 500 1000Hallett (USA and N.Z.)

NAUTICAL MILES

690150 Mirnyy (USSR)

Vostok (USSR)

Casey (Aunt.)

McMurdo (USA)

Carrefour (Fr.)Dumont d'IJrviIle (Fr.)

L eningradskaya (USSR)

5..',

Christchurch )N.Z.)

Figure 2. Map of Antarctica showing air distances between selected stations.

Acknowledging the benefits to be derived from interna-berthing and food for crew and passengers; andtional cooperation in scientific investigations in that Area;utilization of large and small aircraft. Pursuant

Recommend to their Governments that: to Recommendation VII-8, it is hoped that the dis-1. They accept the principle of using. where appropriate,cussions among the various national offices will

common transport facilities by sea and by air for scientificbegin in the months ahead.and other personnel proceeding with their equipment to andfrom antarctic stations;

2. They encourage bilateral or multilateral consultationsbetween contracting parties in order to establish when ar-rangements for such common use of transport facilitieswould be mutually (onvenient and practicable;

3. The cost of the use of any common transport facilitiesshould he arranged l)y agreement between the contractingparties concerned, either by direct payment, by reciprocationin kind, or by other iii ut ual ly agreed means.

It remains for the national offices responsible forexpeditions in Antarctica to develop binational andmultilateral discussions to pursue the planning ofthe airbus system. This must include an updatedinventory of existing and contemplated aviationresources and ground support facilities, arrange-ments for schedules, and exchange of informationon surveys for and preparation of skiways, radioaids, homers, anti air-to-ground communicationsincluding high frequency/single side band chan-nels; weather data; fuel storage anti delivery:

.1 an ua ry-Febru a ry 1973

AcknowledgementsThe authors acknowledge numerous polar col-

leagues in the United States and each of the other11 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties for valu-able technical and logistic discussions. The adviceof the SCAR Working Group on Logistics also isacknowledged. The initial statement of the airbusplan gained impetus through the vision of the lateFret! Bernstein, Captain, U.S. Navy, who served asoperations officer in the U.S. Naval Support Force,Antarctica, in 1968-1969.

References

Robin, Gordon (IC Q. 1968. Logistics in relation to futureantarctic scientific research. Records of the AntarcticTreaty Meeting of Experts on Logistics. Ministry of Educa-tion, Tokyo. p. 650-655.

Smith, Philip M. 1970. International cooperation in Ant-arctica—the next decade. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,26(10): 29-32.

19