Log in

View Full Version : Metal Detection of Aircraft in Glaicer



polarman
06-04-2012, 05:54 PM
How does the ice of a glacier affect the use of a metal detector? What would I need to detect a 40 foot long, aluminum skinned, single engine aircraft up to 60 feet below the surface of a glacier?

highbanker58
06-05-2012, 05:13 AM
Polarman- What's going on, did you loose one? I think your time would be better spent in a small plane flying over the glaciers.I grew up in Alaska, a lot of the ice is amazingly clear. I remember finding a crashed small plane 10-15 feet under the ice, we were able to read the tail numbers.Dave

polarman
06-05-2012, 05:39 AM
Thanks Dave,
How cool is that that you found one. Was it ever exhumed? Anyone on board?
Yep, lost one. The ice is non transparent, not in this country and has been there since 1942. We have a excellent idea of the area: a 2X2 square mile area. The question is, will a detector work better on ice than soil, and by what factor?
I appreciate your help.
Cheers!
Polarman

mxt sniper
06-05-2012, 05:48 AM
Possibly a sophisticated metal detecting magnetometer for something of that depth. A normal handheld metal detector even with a large coil is not going to go that deep. Try googling: Quantro Discovery Tone Magnetometer 1

Reno Chris
06-05-2012, 07:06 AM
The detectors talked about on this forum are just not made for that sort of thing. A top of the line minelab with a 6 foot coil (you'd have to drag it behind an ATV) could probably see something as large as a plane at maybe 15 feet of depth through the ice. The problem is not the ice - its that the signal drops off fast as you detect deeper. The signal at 20 feet would be 1/1000 of what it would be at 10 feet (and at 10 feet its already very tiny). So if you need to see to 50 or 60 feet, forget the hand held devices we use. They just are not designed for that use. Its almost like saying I am interested in using a hacksaw to get into harvesting lumber.

polarman
06-05-2012, 07:26 AM
Thanks Chris, I really appreciate it!

highbanker58
06-05-2012, 05:24 PM
Polarman- The plane had crashed the year before. We could see a sleeping bag rolled out under the ice. We wrote down the tail number, and learned the pilot was rescued and not in the sleeping bag. They had no plans of retrieving the wreck.A glacier can put a lot of ice on top of an object in a short period. What's the story of the plane you lost?? Dave

polarman
06-05-2012, 05:47 PM
We (www.nspolar.us 7 www.favf.us) work with the Department of Defense and the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command in the recovery of WWII MIAs. We have certain aerial methods for detection but always looking for addition means. At the moment I have 15 casualties in Greenland to recover. See http://blip.tv/hdnet-news-and-documentaries/the-duck-hunt-a-search-for-three-american-heroes-4861980 Lou

canucksgirl
06-05-2012, 06:05 PM
We (www.nspolar.us 7 www.favf.us) work with the Department of Defense and the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command in the recovery of WWII MIAs. We have certain aerial methods for detection but always looking for addition means. At the moment I have 15 casualties in Greenland to recover. See http://blip.tv/hdnet-news-and-documentaries/the-duck-hunt-a-search-for-three-american-heroes-4861980 Lou

This might be a real long shot for your purpose, but I understand that many fishermen have had success using a traditional fish finder to scout areas to ice fish. They say they merely clean off some snow and use the fish finder to get the bottom (through the ice), and to figure out if they want to drill their hole there or not. Once they have the hole drilled, some have used the finder again to see their lure and to watch for fish.

Again, I'm not sure how practical that would be for your recovery mission, but the worst that could happen, is the fish finder doesn't read through the ice; so it's just a suggestion. If it does read through the ice, it may show you where the "bottom" is, or with any luck, a plane.

polarman
06-05-2012, 06:19 PM
Thank Canucksgirl! But we are dealing with solid ice all to the way to the bottom. Good suggestion tho!
Lou

canucksgirl
06-05-2012, 06:27 PM
I do understand that Lou, that's why I can't say for sure if it would work or not. I just know (for example), that my father's off-the-shelf fish finder can read depths up to 250 feet. Now, if a fish finder can read through 3-4 feet of ice and find the bottom (as some fishermen have said it can), then perhaps it can go to a much further depth (that perhaps no one has yet tried). ~ Just an idea...

polarman
06-05-2012, 06:32 PM
Good idea.....I'm going to run it past my science guys!

canucksgirl
06-05-2012, 07:03 PM
I did a little additional research and came across this GPR system. I'm by no means an expert in this field, but it seems to me that you could benefit from this technology for your purpose.

http://www.geophysical.com/iceandsnow.htm

polarman
06-05-2012, 07:11 PM
Thank you again Canucksgirl....We actually use two types of very hi tech GPRs plus gravitometers that are used in NASA and US Army Corps of Engineers research. My idea behind the metal detectors is something quick and dirty. We out remotely for 30 plus days and I need to throw everything including the kitchen sink at this......its expensive being out there an I cannot leave any "stone" unturned......

canucksgirl
06-05-2012, 07:16 PM
Fair enough. I tried. Hopefully someone else will have some better suggestions, or know of a metal detector that will work.
Good Luck. :)

polarman
06-05-2012, 07:27 PM
I do really appreciate all your recommendations and the time you spent!

dewam
06-06-2012, 07:33 AM
Have you spoken with Epps, or G. Scott? They found the Glacier Girl and the rest of the squadron in Greenland 200+ feet below the ice. Den

kamikaze1a
06-06-2012, 03:43 PM
Along the line with the fish finder idea, there are fish finders and then there are high power fish finders.

I have a 1000watt fish finder that will see fish/bottom to over 1000 feet deep and everything in between. They do water well but does lose depth if there is any air between the transducer and the bottom. Bubbles in the water really reduces the effectiveness and probably so would air trapped in the ice. I used to have the transducer mounted off the transom but the bubbles coming off the hull was a problem so I ended up mounting inside the hull and filling the compartment with water and "shooting" the signal through the hull. Much clearer picture...

I would get a high power fish finder/depth recorder and melt shallow hole in the ice surface, fill the hole with water and immerse the transducer. I bet it would "see" a plane that was buried. You could even change the attitude of the transducer and search the ice off to the side of the hole...not sure how it would read an air pocket or crevice.

Also I might add, these high power depth recorders usually come in more than one frequency. My unit has 50 and 200mhz. The 50 read deep well and the 200 was more suited to shallow and less affected by the bubbles.

Good luck on your search! I hope you bring our boys home!

highbanker58
06-06-2012, 06:07 PM
Polarman- Check out Accurate locators 877-855-1590. Good luck and thank you for what you are doing to recover these missing War Heros. It's time to bring them all home!! Dave

polarman
06-07-2012, 07:08 AM
Thanks Dave!
Giving them a call right now.....we never stop looking for these men....we now have 41 on our docket......and we never stop looking for better tools.....!
Best!
lou

canucksgirl
06-07-2012, 01:59 PM
Have you all considered contacting Canadian and British Governments for some assistance, or a joint effort? We all had planes in the North Atlantic, so perhaps working with the Allies, would make the task easier (and less expensive)?

Minermike
06-16-2012, 09:17 PM
I did make a reply, but it took me too long, so it did not get posted.