Hacker News Reader

Comment by Svip | Hacker News Reader

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/trans_...

View on HN

> as emergency landings would prove very difficult compared to over south Asia.

That's why KLM fitted its polar-route aircraft with "Polar survival kits", including rifles to shoot polar bears if needed (for defence or calories, it's not clear): https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-arvz6OHAQO0/UHxrLfdrLII/AAAAAAAAC...

https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/KLM-Arctic-Survival-Kit/12...

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...

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.

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.

Your route has the plane flying very close to Russian airspace from Istanbul to Baku. Also, it has the flight going over North Korean airspace at the end. Avoiding these two would be required. While it would add too many extra miles, it does illustrate the point that these route planners are not trivial.

If emergency landings were a such a serious consideration why do so many flights go straight over the Pacific ocean? I always think if we go down here we’ll be hundreds of miles from help. Unless they fly over really heavily trafficed sealanes and I’m not aware.

There are rules about how far from an airport a plane can be, depending on number of engines (redundancy) and how it is rated. If you go to gcmap.com I believe it gives ranges for ETOPS which is a rule for big twin engine planes. AFAIK this is one reason why there are no flights over the south pole (the other being it's not on the way anywhere). Occasionally I feel like I have seen it mentioned that a plane had to deviate from the shortest route because of being too far from an airport.

Also, I recall reading that for Easter Island, only one plane can be inbound during a given window, because it is remote enough that there is nowhere to divert to. But you'd have to check to make sure I'm remembering correctly

Reply on news.ycombinator.com