December 2025 | Oceanography
33
tion of the camp site and environs (Figure 4). In each case, the
hovercraft was moved, instruments were recovered, and the oper-
ation was resumed after about three weeks. Total fuel consump-
tion during the 12 months of the 2,200 km long Fram-2014/15 ice
drift was equal to what an icebreaker burns in six hours of tran-
sit in heavy ice. For scale, an icebreaker transits from the ice edge
at 80°N north of Svalbard to the North Pole (1,100 km) in about
7–10 days under good ice conditions.
OPERATIONS IN ANTARCTICA
EARLIER USE OF HOVERCRAFT
Fuchs (1964) first proposed use of hovercraft for Antarctic travel,
and New Zealand made the first trial run using a small air cush-
ion pleasure craft in 1977 (Caffin, 1977). A more determined effort
was pioneered by Japanese scientists who built and started test-
ing an experimental hovercraft in 1981, followed by an Antarctic
evaluation period running until 1990 (Murao et al., 1994). The
8 m long craft weighed 2.8 tons, had a 0.6 ton payload capacity,
and a hover height of 0.6 m. The activity was not pursued further,
as hovercraft technology was apparently not sufficiently mature at
this stage. Seven years later, two small hovercraft with payloads
of 300 kg were successfully used by the British Antarctic Survey
on the Larsen B Ice Shelf to tackle a surface littered with melt
puddles (James’ Hovercraft Site). During the 1988/89 season, the
US Antarctic Program operated a licensed-built Griffon TD1500
hovercraft in McMurdo. The 10 m long craft was powered by a
190 Hp engine, could take a 1.5 ton payload, and had a stated hover
height of 0.4 m. This craft operated on the Ross Ice Shelf and the
adjacent sea ice in McMurdo Sound in support of science pro-
grams. Cook (1989) summed up the positive experience (see also
https://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/history/hovercraft.html.
be passed. Pressure ridges are often several meters high but have
saddle points where a hover height as low as 0.5 m may be suffi-
cient for passage. Here is where the standard, narrow hovercraft
hull is an advantage. Hovercraft travel in the Transpolar Drift of
first year ice can be achieved with an efficiency not very different
from an icebreaker or transit on major highways on land between
the larger cities (Figure 3a, inset). The effective advance toward the
target may be 4–7 knots, varying with the abundance of obstruc-
tive pressure ridges (Kristoffersen and Hall, 2014).
The most critical issues for driving in sea ice are the light condi-
tions and terrain definition. The early spring from end of March to
mid-May have the best light conditions for aircraft and hovercraft
operations in the Arctic. As the summer progresses, low clouds
and diffuse light conditions (whiteout) become more prevalent,
and by mid-August the visibility sufficient for hovercraft driving
averages only a few hours per day (Kristoffersen and Hall, 2014).
Another consideration is the size of a hovercraft suitable
for operating in the sea ice environment. Our experience is
that a craft significantly larger (>11 m) and heavier (>7 tons)
than the Griffon TD2000 is likely to be less versatile—it does
not recover as easily from encounters with ice obstructions
(Kristoffersen and Hall, 2014).
HOVERCRAFT AS AN ICE DRIFT PLATFORM
There are several advantages to using a hovercraft as an ice drift
platform (Kristoffersen et al., 2016). First, the mobility of the
accommodation and the instrument laboratory as one unit
directly translates into safety. Second, the need for manpower is
greatly reduced, making the hovercraft cost-effective to deploy.
For example, ice dynamics forced four camp relocations during
the Fram-2014/15 ice drift, two of which involved total destruc-
FIGURE 3. Overview of the hovercraft operations (red track lines) described
(a) in the Arctic Ocean and (b) in Antarctica. The inset shows a compari-
son of the efficiency of travel. Numbers for the track covered relative to
the great circle distance for the hovercraft and the icebreaker are for travel
between the ice edge and 85°N along 17°E in the Transpolar Drift. Numbers
for Ski-Doo and dog sled include travel in both the Beaufort Gyre and the
Transpolar Drift (Kristoffersen and Hall, 2014).
(a) Arctic Ocean
(b) Antarctica