Tag Archive for: glaciers

Posts

About Sólheimajökull

In recent days I had heard multiple remarks about how access to Sólheimajökull was getting increasingly precarious, and a number of people in the guide community asked me of my opinion. So when I had a day off earlier this week and the weather was promising, I figured why not go and have a look?

And, if I am going already, why not bring my drone and map out the area in question…

The result was a high resolution map (orthophoto at 3cm resolution, digital elevation at 10cm resolution) as well as a photogrammetric 3D reconstruction consisting of 492 million points. Some artifacts remain in the resulting model due to reflections in open water surfaces and lack of ground control points, but for the purpose at hand I decided the data would be more than good enough.

I should add that since I am relatively infrequently on this glacier and not part of any conversations between the operators, I am obviously not fully informed of any efforts that may already be in place. So some of what I am writing is likely to be redundant, or based on inaccurate or outdated information.

Nevertheless, I am writing this in the hope that some of these thoughts are useful, and also to showcase how high resolution remote sensing tools and GLACIS, the system I have been building to assist the operators in Vatnajökull National Park, could be a useful tool for shared situational awareness across operator boundaries.

Orthophoto of the southern section of the terminus, with the approximate access route marked. The current access trail leads from the parking area (off to the bottom left edge of the image) along the lakefront, and over the land bridge onto the glacier proper.

Rockfall / Landslide Hazard

The rockfall hazard on the hiking trail is well known, and every time I go to Sólheimajökull (which, admittedly, is not very often) it certainly motivates me to not spend too much time in the exposed area.

Rockfall is generally influenced by seasonality (highest risk in the spring, then gradually diminishing in autumn towards winter), but I have also heard of – but not personally seen – indications for larger scale movements in the surrounding mountain similar to the fractures observed on Svínafell in Öræfi which may not necessarily follow the same patterns.

I am a strong believer in good decisions coming from good information, and I believe it would make sense to implement a structured approach to monitor and document any larger scale movements or rockfall. Ideally, a remote sensing system such as a permanently installed TLS might be installed but other, more localized methods (such as measuring the deformation of observed fractures, and repeated high-resolution photogrammetry) could be implemented at a fairly modest cost. This has in fact been done before, although with a focus on glaciology rather than rockfall monitoring.

This also matches very well with my efforts to build a system to track very similar changes in ice caves, and in fact the new iteration of GLACIS was designed with this broader scope in mind.

GLACIS now supports drawing annotations directly on the map display and location-specific overlays. Here, I added a high resolution topographic map, with contour lines drawn at 1m intervals and marked out the most obvious area for triggering potential rockfall, based on where contours showed near vertical or overhanging terrain.

In addition to the present orthophoto and topographic maps, it would be relatively easy to add additional information such as estimated rockfall shadows calculated by geophysicists.

Besides monitoring and documentation, the only other mitigation strategy that appears available is avoidance, ie. finding a route that circumvents rockfall hazards as much as possible and takes the fastest possible path where exposure is obligatory.

Dead Ice

Once past the rockfall, the access trail follows the foot of the mountain and over a small tongue onto the glacier proper. While apparently rocky / sandy terrain, it is quite evident that the path in fact leads over dead ice. This raises the question of how well supported this terrain is, since it is in fact the margin of a glacier lake and new sink holes are known to have formed quite rapidly in the past.

Sinkholes and open water are encroaching on the access trail. Note the bridge across the open water on the right.

The main risk here is of course a person venturing over unstable ground, falling into open water of unknown depth and (in the worst case) drowning. While unlikely, it feels prudent for outdoor professionals in the area to be prepared for this eventuality – not necessarily with a casualty from their own group, but because the area is also accessed by private individuals who may be unaware of the risks (and thus more likely to encounter the consequences).

In addition, monitoring and mapping these development may give some insight into how the subsurface water flows and ice structures are evolving, and where additional weakness may be encountered. In particular, one of the most pressing questions for me is how deep those sinkholes are1.

Fast Ice

The final step before accessing the glacier proper leads over an isthmus-like ice bridge, bounded by open water on both sides. It is difficult to establish if this is shore-fast ice (floating but anchored to the shoreline), or in fact grounded (sitting on the lake bed).

The “ice bridge” currently being used as the access path, arriving from the bottom left of the image and reaching the glacier at the top right.

The glacier flows generally in a right-to-left direction in this image, at about 0.1m/day. I would expect this to further destabilize the ice bridge at its narrowest part (top right). With the expected mass loss during the summer months, I would expect this path to become unstable very rapidly. Sections in this area already show very strong evidence for being undercut in close proximity to the current path.

Plan view of undercut and tunnel close the path. Photo on the right was taken at the yellow marker.
Deeply undercut and destabilized layering and tunnel formation close to the access path

Overall, it is quite evident that access to the glacier proper via this ice bridge will very soon be impracticable. Making any sort of prediction about the time line is almost guaranteed to be wrong, but it feels to me that this is a matter of a few weeks, if not days. Given the evidence we see for unstable layering and weaknesses near the choke point, it is at least conceivable that this route could become impassable while people are in fact on the glacier, or even worse result in a (localized) collapse under a group’s combined weight.

For a longer time frame, I would be very interested in creating a detailed 3D capture of the ice bridge (possibly using a combination of terrestrial laser scanning and photogrammetry), but assuming that this access point may likely no longer be viable within 2-3 weeks it may be of questionable benefit2.

I believe at least some operators are already investigating alternative access routes that leads to the glacier via more solid ground.

What Now?

This is of course the most difficult question of all. Much of what can realistically be accomplished depends very much on the type of operation – a single person owner-operator clearly has access to much more limited resources than a corporation with hundreds of staff, but also enjoys significantly more flexibility when it comes to operational changes that may be very difficult to implement by a larger operation where shifts in timing or resource use can be very complex to manage.

Individual vs. Collective Risk Taking

With a heavily visited, public access location such as Sólheimajökull it is important to consider not only the risks as they apply to a single individual or isolated operator, but to also evaluate them as they apply to the entirety of visitors.

Statistically, the incidence or likelihood of any singular event such as rockfall, or sink hole collapse is perhaps not very high, and thus the individual risk may be low. But given the steady stream of visitors during the summer months – both on their own and on guided tours – the area in question is almost constantly occupied and consequently the overall likelihood of somebody being in the wrong place at the wrong time is significantly higher. So the collective risk must be considered to be quite substantial.

This situation is made even more precarious because the population of visitors in the area is a mixture of professionally guided tours of different kinds as well as private individuals on their own. It must be assumed that the vast majority of the latter group would have little to no awareness of the specific risks present, and modest physical abilities at best.

The Guided Tour Conundrum

While the decision making of such private individuals is not under control of any tour operator or guide, the opposite is not quite the case either. Guided tours carry the implicit guarantee of being as safe as humanly possible, and therefore the path a guide chooses for their customers is likely to be perceived as the safest possible route and likely to be followed by private people as well – who are quite possibly unaware of the particular hazards they may encounter on the way nonetheless, and ill equipped to deal with them. In addition, paying customers will (more or less blindly) accept the guide’s judgment of the access hike being ‘safe enough’ and misjudge the element of risk that remains despite the guide’s best efforts to be much lower (ie. negligible) than it might actually be.

Information signage (which is already present on Sólheimajökull) is a helpful tool, but the question remains of whether this is sufficient and how for example any works to facilitate quicker movement through rockfall exposure may in fact motivate more private visitors to venture into the space. Which might simultaneously reduce the risk to each individual (shorter exposure time), but increase the risk to the collective (more people present overall).

Public policy makers will need to consider these effects carefully, especially since we are dealing with low-probability but high-consequence scenarios.

Immediate Actions and Mid-/Long-Term Strategies

Nonetheless, I believe at least in part the sections above already give a direction which should be taken, with some aspects warranting immediate or very short term measures while others may have a bit more time to develop further.

I do not feel like I have any satisfying answers to which immediate actions should be taken.

Clearly the collective time spent in any area exposed to rockfall should be reduced as much as possible, ideally down to zero by finding an alternative route that entirely circumvents the exposed area. Physically restricting access to the general public while keeping it open for commerical operations is a tricky subject and I have some doubt that this – or closing access outright, including for all operations – would be feasible or justifiable.

Similarly, the exposure to open water might be limited by good route finding. But since one would like to stay away from the rockfall runout as much as possible, this could be a difficult balance to strike. If accidental cold water immersion cannot be completely ruled out, the next best thing is of course to focus on mitigating its consequences by being ready for an effective rescue and care.

Perhaps the most pressing issue is the ice bridge, with its layered and possibly unstable ice structure bounded by open water and very limited flexibility for route finding for low- to modest-ability customers. Dilligent monitoring for futher changes and a low threshold for further deterioration feel important, as well as an immediate formulation of alternative access – and even more importantly escape – routes. Guides should be ready for rapidly developing changes and complex rescue scenarios.

Establishing monitoring and documenting changes to the ice bridge leads directly to the other aspect – apart from addressing the most pressing issues at hand, what could the strategy be to ensure continued and safe access to Sólheimajökull? And which additional information may be useful and should be collected to make the best possible decisions?

For me, collecting more data about rockfall is perhaps the most pressing point because it is a low-incidence but high-consequence hazard. Monitoring the fissure and documenting rockfall events feel like a logical next step, and of course this would be done in collaboration with geophysicists who have both the tools and expertise to interpret the results.

Establishing a rough depth profile of the nearshore area of the glacier lake and potential sinkhole depths would help both gage the consequences of an incident involving cold water immersion (do people get wet but can walk out? is there a risk of drowning?), and gain a better understanding of how the ice bridge may develop in the future (is it, and the attached glacier, grounded or floating?).

It is also evident that the ice bridge is a very temporary access point. Continuing the access hike along the base of the mountain appears feasible, but a rough estimate indicates it might add another 3-400m of walking each way, before reaching the ice. This could very well prove challenging, especially for low-ability customers and/or the scope of short-duration tours.

Shared Situational Awareness

There is no doubt that the primary expertise and wealth of observations lies with the operators and their guides who are in the area on a daily basis. My infrequent visits and incomplete knowledge of the situation is obviously no match for them, and it would be outright ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Nevertheless, it is one of the main criteria for being a good guide to constantly evaluate and form an opinion on the environment they work in. This might be based on incomplete knowledge, wrong assumptions, and influenced by all sorts of factors from personal experience to customer profile, but it is the foundation of all decision making.

The true strength of those individual opinions, even if they are inevitably flawed in some way and incomplete, arises when they are shared, compared and combined with others’ perceptions until a coherent and much more thorough picture emerges.

Similarly, public policy makers, emergency responders, operations managers and other individuals can contribute to and benefit from this process and its outcomes.

To achieve this, it is important to create an environment where all stakeholders are willing and able to share information – ideally moderated by a person who is unequivocally accepted by all participants as being objective and competent – and by having access to the necessary tools to collect, evaluate, and share any relevant data.

This is exactly the process we have been developing within the Vatnajökull National Park over the last two years, by refining the way in which Fagráð and the Assessment Group – representatives from all participating companies – worked together and discussed their observations and concerns in a regular and proactive fashion, and GLACIS was built – and continues to be developed – as a tool to assist and document this process and provide a common operational picture.

As I outlined in my previous post, I like to believe that we have come quite a long way with this process, and perhaps it is time to look beyond Vatnajökull and open a discussion about whether a similar approach may not be useful elsewere.

  1. In retrospect, it would not have been a bad idea to bring a drysuit… ↩︎
  2. Except that it poses an interesting challenge and would help refine my data acquisition workflow ↩︎

About the Author

Stephan Mantler has served as chairman of Fagráð, the professional council for safety in glacier hikes and ice cave tours within Vatnajökull National Park, since 2024. Before pursuing a career as an outdoor professional, he earned a Ph.D. in computer science with a focus on the management and interactive visualization of large-scale geospatial data. He is the creator of GLACIS, a collaborative platform for glacier and ice cave risk assessments, condition reports, and operational situational awareness. Stephan currently serves on the board of AIMG and is an instructor for AIMG ice cave courses, a Rescue 3 Ice Field Safety and Ice Rescue Technician Instructor, and an ICE-SAR mountain rescue instructor.

Incident Report – 2026-03-18

I was part of an ICE-SAR response to an incident on Falljökull last Wednesday. As always when something happens in a professional guiding context, it is worth to summarize observations and look for lessons to be learned. What was missed, or went wrong, for this accident to occur? Where can the guide community improve to hopefully prevent it in the future?

A redacted version, with personally identifiable information removed, can be found here.

Safety on Glacier Excursions

I have received an incredible amount of very positive feedback about my recent essay, and it motivated me to address some of the questions that came up both in direct response to it and in other discussions.

This article is intended primarily for visitors who are concerned about various planned activities, and deals specifically with the situation in Iceland. A discussion detailed enough to satisfy glaciologists and outdoor professionals is clearly outside the scope of a simple blog post!

What makes ice cave tours different from other glacier excursions, such as glacier hikes or ice climbing? Or are they all equally dangerous?

The answer, as one would expect, is complicated and depends on many factors. One could (and possibly should!) write an entire book on the subject, but we can certainly examine some general aspects. Here I will focus on the glacier itself, and particularly on the areas most commonly visited for tourism activities, which are snow free in the summer months (the ablation zone).

Let us begin by examining how a glacier evolves throughout the seasons. In summer, the glacier is exposed to near 24 hour daylight, warm temperatures and rainfall. This deteriorates the upper layers of the glacier in a way commonly called sunbaking – essentially each of the individual crystals melt along their boundaries until they entirely lose adhesion and become what is perhaps best described as a brittle set of loose puzzle pieces. Importantly, this does not only happen at the surface, but because the sunlight penetrates into the ice also progressively occurs into greater depths forming a layer that is called the weathering crust. This means that as this process continues throughout the summer, the glacier not only melts at the surface but also deteriorates internally, while at the same time loose fragments on the surface get entirely eroded away or dislodged by gravity, surface water, or other effects. Surface water also continually seeps into surface defects and can further affect the ice in ways not easily observed from the outside.

There are noteworthy exceptions, of course. For example, any glacier that is covered with substantial amounts of debris (such as volcanic ash in the case of Kötlujökull) may be protected from much of this effect and exhibit slower rates of change.

In winter, the glacier is either protected by snow cover (which entirely stops erosion) or is exposed to very little sunlight – this causes the weathering of the glacier in the winter months to primarily occur at the surface level, leading to the highly polished, smooth and glass hard winter ice.

With these basic processes in mind, we can now examine their consequences for various types of excursions on the glacier.

Surface Activities

Consequently, if a glacier activity remains on the surface of the ice (such as a glacier hike), the loose and relatively soft summer ice is in many ways preferable. There is great traction with crampons, and the roughness of the sun baked crystals means that a person that fell down would just remain put in most normal terrain – although they may cut their hands on the sharp edges if not wearing gloves. Any degradation of the ice into greater depths is not a concern since we will generally walk on top of many meters of ice that is at no risk of collapse under our weight, and it is still very strong under the negligible compression of our body weight. Loose ice can be easily removed to access solid, blue ice underneath for building reliable climbing anchors.

In contrast, winter ice can be so hard that especially lightweight clients will have a difficult time finding good purchase with their crampons. The exposed ice is much harder, and even if the crampons have been sharpened to a sharp point do not penetrate very well. A stumble may quickly lead to a slide that is very difficult to recover from – so even otherwise very benign terrain may need to be protected.

A light snow cover greatly diminishes this risk once it has bound with the ice underneath. However, a more substantial layer of snow causes traveling over the glacier to become more hazardous, because windswept snow can easily obscure any dangerous spots in the surface. Larger moulins are likely to remain somewhat visible, but even a misstep into a smaller void underneath the snow could easily result in a sprained ankle, knee injury or other harm.

To protect from these fall hazards, good route choice and the use of fixed or temporary ropes are generally sufficient and easily managed.

Overhead Hazards

Once we are exposed to any overhead hazards, the picture changes. In the summer, we routinely see smaller fragments coming loose under their own weight and harmlessly tumbling down surprisingly moderate slopes, and if the structure becomes steeper the chances of larger pieces breaking off increases dramatically. In particular, if a feature is free standing (such as an isolated wall) the sun baking may occur from multiple directions until there is no core with good integrity left.

We also need to keep in mind that while ice is very strong in compression, even in its compact form it is quite weak in tension, and any ice affected by sunbaking will exhibit dramatically lower tensile strength yet! We must therefore rely on any overhead features to be well supported on both sides, having a good, self supporting shape, and suitable thickness.

Whether we encounter those overhead hazards on a normal glacier hike (maybe walking a bit into an accessible crevasse, like routinely done on Falljökull, or into a moulin as it has been popular on Breiðamerkurjökull), because we are suspended from a rope and climbing up a vertical wall, or going into an ice cave does not necessarily change the character of the hazard.

What does change however is how long we are exposed to the risk, and if that particular location is an essential component of the tour program or can be easily avoided.

On a glacier hike the guide can always choose to not approach any vertical or overhanging terrain at all, or if it cannot be avoided mitigate the risk by limiting the duration of the exposure (very much in the same way one would pass through a potential rockfall area without stopping).

For ice climbing, we must indeed be in sufficiently steep terrain that allows the client to learn good ice climbing technique and gives a good experience – but since essentially all commercial ice climbing tours are top rope scenarios, loose material can be easily managed from above before the client proceeds to climb.

Therefore, for both glacier hikes and ice climbing, approaching and inspecting the overhead feature closely is generally possible without much additional effort, and allows for good and timely judgment of its condition.

With ice caves, the whole premise of the tour is to spend the majority of the duration exploring areas underneath the surface, and thus the overhead hazard is continually present or at least cannot be avoided when entering and leaving the area. Space is often limited and there is not enough room to avoid prolonged exposure overhead hazards. In a sufficiently large cave, the inner sections are often covered with sufficiently thick and homogenous ice that a collapse is unlikely – although there have been exceptions with pieces of the otherwise stable roof flaking off, icicles forming overhead, embedded rocks threatening to melt loose, etc. Furthermore, inspecting many of those overhead features in detail is generally more difficult, if at all possible, more time consuming, usually requires leaving the group temporarily unattended, and may therefore be limited to infrequent checks. Those may be sufficient in the winter months, when the rate of change is generally relatively slow, but becomes extremely problematic during the summer.

Other Risks

Of course, the integrity of the ice is not our only concern on glacier excursions. Common to all activities is that there is generally no easily accessible shelter from severe weather (except in larger ice caves, which can remain surprisingly comfortable even if there is a raging snow storm on the outside).

Also common to all glacier activities is that most clients are unfamiliar with the use of crampons, and the risk of self injury or stumbling certainly needs to be considered. Ice axes and ice climbing tools further increase this risk, especially when used or carried incorrectly.

Particular to ice climbing, protective eyewear is important to prevent injury from ice spray and clients with poor technique are at a considerable risk of hitting their knuckles when placing the ice tools. Bystanders, including the guide if belaying from below, are at risk of being hit by ice dislodged by the climber. And clearly the proper use of all safety equipment and good belaying technique are critical to ensure a potential fall of the client is caught safely. Warm temperatures and sunbaking require the rope anchors to be carefully planning and constructed, protected from unnecessary deterioration, and may need to be checked frequently. Ice screws have high thermal conductivity and may melt the ice surrounding them, becoming loose over a relatively short time if ambient temperatures are high. This is less of a concern in the winter months.

Ice caves are generally formed by subglacial water flows or geothermal activity. Those water flows generally subside in the winter when both meltwater and rain are diminished, but especially during warm spells and spring can increase dramatically. Water held back by the glacier in subglacial or marginal lakes may spontaneously drain as a jökulhlaup that could reach into ice caves or the proglacial area around the cave. A warm spell and rain falling onto snow cover can release substantial slush flows that might drain into exposed areas such as moulins. Geothermally formed ice caves, if poorly ventilated, can accumulate high levels of toxic gases, or reduce oxygen concentration with inert gases to dangerous levels.

Finally, sloppy or poorly maintained safety precautions can substantially increase risks. A rope, handrail or bridge will be trusted by customers to be reliable and trustworthy. On a warm, rainy day it may take only a few hours until an ice screw melts loose enough to be dislodged with minimal force, and while V threads generally last longer they too eventually melt out. In both cases whoever was pulling on the rope to keep their balance will have a very nasty surprise. Poorly tied knows may come undone with catastrophic results. Ropes left to freeze onto the ice may snap loose once a client pulls on it, throwing them off balance. In all of these cases, it might have been safer if there were no rope in place at all!

Putting it all together

In summary, one could very generally say that –

  • Glacier hikes are safest in the summer, and some additional risks must be managed in the winter months.
  • Ice climbing is generally somewhat more dangerous due to the use of additional, very sharp tools, necessary exposure to heights and general character of the activity. While overall easier in the summer months, care must be taken to build reliable anchor structures and reduce the risk from falling debris to the climber and any bystanders.
  • Ice caves are safest in the winter, when the cold temperatures and limited sunlight allow the ice to remain relatively stable. There is a very high risk both in the spring when snowmelt and slush flows must be expected, and later in the summer once the deterioration through sunbaking penetrates any overhead ice structures to dangerous levels. The most dramatic changes haven often been observed from mid August until early October.

While both glacier hikes and ice climbing occur in environments that are more easily managed, and there generally is a much larger range of options to choose from, ice caves are dramatically more limited in number and allow fewer alternatives for risk mitigation or avoidance.

There have certainly been years where exceptional conditions allowed ice caves to be visited earlier than normal, later into the spring, or perhaps even in mid summer, but we must be careful to ensure that such an exception does not continually become the new norm due to outside pressure or expectations.

Ultimately, glaciers are a rapidly changeable environment. Safety plans, regular site evaluations and standard practices are all valuable tools but cannot replace a well trained guide who is able to competently assess the situation in the moment, and also has the authority to make possibly drastic decisions about any tour. This requires training, experience, and a supportive work environment.

This unpredictability is why almost all guide companies will not generally offer ice cave tours outside of a time frame where experience over the past decades has shown that visiting them can be performed in a safe fashion, and even within the winter months sometimes must be canceled.

Tranquility

Right place, right time. I hadn’t been in this particular area of the glacier for about a month, so I knew this structure was likely to be still around but neither its condition nor at which time we would arrive there. It all lined up, the sun was in the perfect spot and just enough meltwater on the ice to make a perfect mirror. What a place to discover!

(from yesterday’s full-day ice cave tour — shot handheld with Sony A7C + Sigma 20/1.4)

Glacier Radiology Support

I spent the first few days of September this year on the Vatnajökull ice cap, helping researchers from the Glacier Radiology Group at Stanford University with testing their prototype equipment (most of which will ultimately be used for research in the Antarctic and in Greenland). Overall conditions were amazing except for one storm day that we essentially spent inside our basecamp on Grímsfjall, where the Icelandic Glaciological Society maintains a small research station. I used the time to develop a small tool for importing their radiometry data into 3D software for visualisation – maybe a bit unexpected, but not really for a mountain guide who happens to also have a Ph.D. in computer science!

Driving on the lower parts of Skálafellsjökull was cumbersome, primarily because late summer snow tends to be extremely uneven and progress is slow. Higher up however a recent storm system had smoothed everything out and allowed us to cruise comfortably at good speeds. The flat surface was of course also much better for both the UAV and towed configuration we were testing. We encountered a few crevasses here and there, but they were all easily managed.

⚠️ Mobile device support for the 360° panoramas below is a bit dodgy – I am working on finding a better solution but for now those are best enjoyed on a full-sized computer. Sorry!

Grímsfjall is one of those surreal places that are hard to believe actually exist. And because of the particular local conditions, it also is very often hiding itself in a cover of fairly dense fog. I have been there many times, but rarely enjoyed visibility as good as this time. The views were just amazing. I also created a panorama further out above the caldera lake, and one from Svíahnukur vestry, the western peak of the caldera rim. You can flip through them below.

stepman is Stephan Mantler, AIMG certified glacier and mountain guide, member of the Icelandic search and rescue team, and former professional photographer with over 30 years of experience exploring the outdoors. GO WITH STEPMAN. No matter which adventure you are looking for – you will go further, see more, and come back with a lifetime of memories. Stephan's background is a great match for photographers looking for a guide that understands their vision, and for anybody else who is looking for utmost flexibility. From family friendly excursions to hardcore ice climbing, anything is possible.

New Map!

I am having some technical difficulties with my drone which in addition to the COVID situation has been delaying my mapping project in the past months. On the last flight, the camera white balance unexpectedly changed during a battery swap leading to blue tint for half of the map which I only detected after completion of the flight. I did not have sufficient spare batteries to repeat the flight, so I accepted that it is what it is.

But in more positive news, I created a new WordPress plugin that allows me to directly embed my maps (without the comparison feature, which is the main reason to head on over to the main project site).

New map!

Following up on my recent update on the mapping project, I did actually find good flying conditions just a few days later and decided to give it a try with just two batteries. To make it work, I reduced the map coverage a bit and flew at a slightly higher altitude than normal (110m instead of 80m). This required fewer passes and thus less flight time, and was barely doable with two batteries. Not perfect, but still a success!

As always, the interactive maps are online at https://map.hafjall.is/ .

Update on the mapping project

Some may have noticed that my glacier mapping project has been on a bit of a hiatus. The reason is a combination of lack of opportunity and technical difficulties.

Read more