nitepilot79 From Turkey, joined May 2008, 248 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7698 times:
If an airliner had to make an emergency landing in the north pole (god forbid), and by some miracle there were survivors, how would they survive? Is there a search and rescue plan in place that would get rescuers to the site within any reasonable amount of time? I realize that today's airliners are said to be more reliable than ever, but better safe than sorry as they say.
rscaife1682 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7653 times:
Polar Route aircraft have to have polar survival equipment on board the aircraft.
This equipment helps for short term situations only.
biggsfo From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2755 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7521 times:
Extremely unlikely as there are ample diversion points along the north pole. I do believe Northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Siberia all have runways and (albeit limited) facilities to handle an airliner in case of an emergency.
Transpac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3139 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7472 times:
In the case of DL (I don't know if it's a company thing or FAR mandated) there are climate suits for the crew for use anytime they need to leave the aircraft.
nitepilot79 From Turkey, joined May 2008, 248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7246 times:
Quoting biggsfo (Reply 2): Extremely unlikely as there are ample diversion points along the north pole. I do believe Northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Siberia all have runways and (albeit limited) facilities to handle an airliner in case of an emergency.
To be more specific, basically a ditching, like after a double engine failure. Or some other serious emergency.
nitepilot79 From Turkey, joined May 2008, 248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7195 times:
Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 4): In the case of DL (I don't know if it's a company thing or FAR mandated) there are climate suits for the crew for use anytime they need to leave the aircraft.
What about the passengers? When I said emergency landing I should have been more specific. I meant more of an emergency ditching; whereas the hull integrity would most likely be compromised and the elements would affect the cabin.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7069 times:
Quoting nitepilot79 (Thread starter): If an airliner had to make an emergency landing in the north pole (god forbid), and by some miracle there were survivors, how would they survive? Is there a search and rescue plan in place that would get rescuers to the site within any reasonable amount of time? I realize that today's airliners are said to be more reliable than ever, but better safe than sorry as they say.
Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 6): To be more specific, basically a ditching, like after a double engine failure. Or some other serious emergency.
The survivors would have to improvise. No airplane carries all of the emergency equipment necessary to ensure the survival of every passenger in every contingency imaginable. Even if you consider a water landing such as US 1549, the lifejackets and flotation devices would not have kept all of the passengers alive if that jet had landed anywhere but the Hudson River.
CX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6950 times:
Not sure about other airlines but an airlines I know well carries two artic survival suits...for potantially 320 people. I guess they have to learn to share.
airbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6950 times:
Passenger aircraft have not such thing as polar survival kits, for passenger use. At least, not as far as I know from my job. Yes, they do excist for flightcrew though.
Aircraft in trouble can always divert to a nearest diversion airport in case of e.g. engine malfunction. If something more serious happens, survival chances are already very limited usually.
"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
MrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6880 times:
What diversion airports exist above the arctic circle? Sure, ETOPS 180 gives you (hopefully) 2 hours of diversion time to the nearest capable field in the event of an engine failure for a twin.. but what of a diversion for more serious purposes such as fire, structural issues, etc. where an emergency landing is required? Swissair 111 comes to mind as an example.
I realize the question is near moot, as an aircraft experiencing such issues over water with no suitable diversion fields would simply have to ditch and pray for the best. But crossing the arctic circle, there's land and [possibly] suitable fields in length to accept an aircraft as large as a 777 or a 747? What fields might these be?
[Edited 2010-05-24 08:15:04]
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6821 times:
Quoting airbuseric (Reply 11): Aircraft in trouble can always divert to a nearest diversion airport in case of e.g. engine malfunction. If something more serious happens, survival chances are already very limited usually.
And in the context of the north polar region more so. Simple fact is if a commercial airliner cannot make any of it's diversion airports and has to land at or near the north pole it will amount to a situation even worse than a ditching at sea. The north pole has no land surface within several hundred miles. It only has a surprisingly few feet of pack ice that may not sustain the weight of impact. So hitting a hard surface then being immersed in freezing cold water does not bode well for anyone surviving the 'landing'.
jetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1523 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6630 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8): The survivors would have to improvise. No airplane carries all of the emergency equipment necessary to ensure the survival of every passenger in every contingency imaginable. Even if you consider a water landing such as US 1549, the lifejackets and flotation devices would not have kept all of the passengers alive if that jet had landed anywhere but the Hudson River.
As far as I know, there has to be a life jacket for every passenger, usually located under the seat and enough flotation gear for all passengers, either in life rafts or emergency exit slides or a combination of both. As in the case of US 1549, some of the passengers were able to use the 2 forward slides as life rafts.
What happened in US 1549 was the 2 rear flotation devices were unusable because the 2 rear doors where they are attached was underwater because of the way the airplane landed, tail first which caused some of the structure to fail letting in water in the rear part of the fuselage.
Even in my corporate aviation days, when we flew the JetStar on over water flights, except Northeast to Florida, but like to Bermuda or even across the Atlantic, we were required to have a life jacket for each person on board and a life raft big enough to hold everybody, this was an FAA regulation and we operated under Part 91 general aviation rules, not Part 125 airline rules.
airbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4015 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6385 times:
Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 14): Qantas carries them for each passenger on Antarctic sightseeing charters.
That's not a standard operation of course. In general airlines won't carry it for each passenger, but only the general emergency equipment as can be found also on other routes.
Polar kits include e.g. extra flashlights, signal kit (smoke/flares) etc.
"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 18, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5713 times:
Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 7): When I said emergency landing I should have been more specific. I meant more of an emergency ditching; whereas the hull integrity would most likely be compromised and the elements would affect the cabin.
That's called a crash, basically. There's no requirement that you be able to survive that in any climate, let alone the north pole.
Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 11): Sure, ETOPS 180 gives you (hopefully) 2 hours of diversion time to the nearest capable field in the event of an engine failure for a twin..
ETOPS 180 gives you far more than 2 hours...you've got until you exhaust your fuel. How far that is depends on where you were in the flight when it happened but, given the length of your normal polar flight and assuming a worst case point for the engine failure, you've probably got 5-6 hours of diversion time.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5535 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18): ETOPS 180 gives you far more than 2 hours...you've got until you exhaust your fuel. How far that is depends on where you were in the flight when it happened but, given the length of your normal polar flight and assuming a worst case point for the engine failure, you've probably got 5-6 hours of diversion time.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 20, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5517 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 19):
I thought ETOPS 180 = 180 minutes = three hours?
Yes. That's the minimum certified time. However that doesn't mean the remaining engine will stop at 181 minutes. It will most likely still run for quite a while.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 5321 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 20): Yes. That's the minimum certified time. However that doesn't mean the remaining engine will stop at 181 minutes. It will most likely still run for quite a while.
Yes, of course. But I take "diversion time" to mean the amount of time needed to reach the nearest alternate airport. Under ETOPS 180, that's a maximum of 180 minutes. So I don't understand where the 5 to 6 hours comes from?
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 22, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5279 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 21): But I take "diversion time" to mean the amount of time needed to reach the nearest alternate airport. Under ETOPS 180, that's a maximum of 180 minutes.
Correct. But that's the diversion time required, not the diversion time available. An aircraft on an ETOPS-180 flight plan may be capable of flying far further than 180 minutes from the time of the engine failure.
Quoting A342 (Reply 21): So I don't understand where the 5 to 6 hours comes from?
That's capability...if you're on a polar flight (10+ hours) and you suffer the worse-case engine-failure point, you should be about 180 minutes from at least 2 diversion airports. But you've still got the fuel to complete the remainder of the originally planned flight (plus reserves), plus a potential time extension (though not range extension) for flying slower and running your remaining engine at higher efficiency.
This whole tangent started here:
Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 11): Sure, ETOPS 180 gives you (hopefully) 2 hours of diversion time
ETOPS-180 gives you way more than 2 hours of potential diversion time, that was my only point.
Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 11): crossing the arctic circle, there's land and [possibly] suitable fields in length to accept an aircraft as large as a 777 or a 747? What fields might these be?
Lots of Tundra and Muskeg, so one could guess that in the odd ODD event of a dead stick landing up there, it may work out with a gear collapse and small fire. I think ever captain would rather limp to the nearest airport on fumes and one engine rather than consider that.
Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 13): Qantas carries them for each passenger on Antarctic sightseeing charters. They are not as protective as the crew one, but better than nothing.
Good call by QF. I never leave home without the proper gear to survive in any weather enroute during my blocks.
j0rdan From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 127 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5103 times:
I remember reading in "From the Flight Deck" by Capt. Doug Morris that Tiksi, Russia (IATA:IKS/ICAO:UEST) is a suitable airport for landing with a 9845 x 194 ft concrete runway available, I'm not sure what other field services are available. Does anybody else know? The airport appears to have 3x weekly scheduled service to Yakutsk, Russia (IATA:YKS/ICAO:UEEE) on Yakutia Airlines (IATA:R3/ICAO:SYL) with Antonov An-24 aircraft. Is there any other suitable airports near the poles?
26 NorthStarDC4M: Alert CFB is listed as a divert point for some airlines, wouldn't want to try it though. Thule AFB in Greenland would be suitable Svalbard has a dece
27 MrChips: In the event of an accident or off-airport landing in the Far North, there are plans for such an occurrence. At CFB Trenton, a Hercules stands on perm
Sponsor Message: 
From Turkey, joined May 2008, 248 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 319 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6276 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2596 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4015 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 680 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
