|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
December 14th 03, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
December 14th 03, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message ... (Robert Bonomi) wrote: My understanding is he wasn't actually planning to go there. There are probably a number of problems with shipping fuel to places you are not planning to go, just in case: - it's expensive to ship it there - you may have to ship it out again if you don't use it - I'm not sure whether they would let you leave it there indefinitely I doubt that they would even accept the shipment, so the question is academic. In dealing with bureaucracy, sometimes it is better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission that will surely be refused. That is obviously the tack that Johanson chose, and probably the only reasonable choice if one insists on making the attempt. Unfortunately for him, the bureaucracy has chosen to play hardball in this instance. Vaughn
|
|
#3
December 18th 03, 12:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote: (Robert Bonomi) wrote: I'd suggest it is far _worse_ form for the PIC *not* to have "made sure of" the necessary resources =in=advance=/ If a pilot makes an "emergency" (or otherwise) landing in a farmer's field, is that farmer obligated in any way to sell him fuel from his farm holding tank, so he can fly the plane back out? What, if *anything*, is different about the two scenarios? Presumably, Jon *knew* he was going to need fuel when he got there. WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE ADVANCE ARRANGEMENTS to ship _his_own_ fuel there? What 'flight services' were listed as available at that location? Betcha it's "no services". My understanding is he wasn't actually planning to go there. There are probably a number of problems with shipping fuel to places you are not planning to go, just in case: - it's expensive to ship it there - you may have to ship it out again if you don't use it - I'm not sure whether they would let you leave it there indefinitely So? It costs money. Big deal. It's called "the cost of insurance". If his planning/methodology is as good as people are claiming, he _knew_ that he might have to 'divert' there. And he _consciously_ chose -not- to have that 'insurance' in place *IF* he did have to divert there. As events unfolded, he _does_ need the insurance that he decided not to have. If it was an 'informed' decision, in retrospect it was the -wrong- decision, and the fact remains that he's got nobody to blame but himself for making *that* choice. If it was an *UN-INFORMED* decision, then it is clear that the failure lies with the decision-maker. For -not- properly researching things _before_ making the decision. There is no 'third possibility'. Thus, _however_ that *fatally*flawed* decision was made, John bears the responsibility for it. And he has to "live with" the consequences of that bad decision. Yeah, it'd be "nice" if the NSF would "bail him out". However, they have *NO*OBLIGATION*WHATSOEVER* to do so. They have what *THEY* believe to be good reasons for _not_ doing so. Including, but not limited to: "the next bozo who shows up in like circumstances, and yells 'discrimination', when we refuse to supply him, given that we _did_ supply somebody else." With the exception of a _very_limited_ collection of 'personal belongings', *everything* on that base comes out of "somebody's" budget, and material _and_ labor has to be cost-accounted for. "Rescuing stranded adventurers" is simply _not_ in the budget. _Any_ materials used for such purposes have to be replaced. This consumes people's time, reduces the materials available for 'primary purpose' of the facility for an _indefinite_ period (until replaced), and raises a potential nightmare of logistics consequences. EVERYTHING is 'rationed', and consumption in excess of projected levels _is_ a big issue. *GIVEN* that "somebody" is going to have to: arrange for 'supplies' for Johanson to be shipped in (either what he actually uses, *or* the 'replacement' for material from on-site inventory), *pay* for the materials, *pay* for the transport, etc., etc., ad nauseum. *WHY* should the NSF take on those chores, vs Mr. Johanson _doing_it_himself_? Possible reasons Mr. Johanson isn't doing it for himself: 1) doesn't have the know-how and/or contacts 2) doesn't have the financial resources 3) traffic to/from the area is 'restricted' We can eliminate #3, since occasional tourist ships go there. The 'far frontiers' *ARE* an "attractive nuisance". They draw the kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers like a magnet. *WITHOUT* considering whether Mr. Johanson fits that description, It *is* a fact that "helping" him return from his botched 'adventure' *WOULD* cause those who _do_ fit the "kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers" categorization to be more likely to make their own *ill-prepared* attempts. Resulting in _bigger_ drains on the *limited* resources available.
|
|
#4
December 18th 03, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Robert Bonomi) wrote: majority snipped for brevity The 'far frontiers' *ARE* an "attractive nuisance". They draw the kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers like a magnet. *WITHOUT* considering whether Mr. Johanson fits that description, It *is* a fact that "helping" him return from his botched 'adventure' *WOULD* cause those who _do_ fit the "kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers" categorization to be more likely to make their own *ill-prepared* attempts. Resulting in _bigger_ drains on the *limited* resources available. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It appears.... There are two very polorized groups here. Neither will be swayed. At best, you are preaching to the choir. Barnyard BOb -- choir boy
|
|
#5
December 18th 03, 07:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Dec 2003 03:18 PM, RR Urban posted the following:
(Robert Bonomi) wrote: majority snipped for brevity The 'far frontiers' *ARE* an "attractive nuisance". They draw the kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers like a magnet. *WITHOUT* considering whether Mr. Johanson fits that description, It *is* a fact that "helping" him return from his botched 'adventure' *WOULD* cause those who _do_ fit the "kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers" categorization to be more likely to make their own *ill-prepared* attempts. Resulting in _bigger_ drains on the *limited* resources available. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It appears.... There are two very polorized groups here. Neither will be swayed. Both are right. He took off without covering all the angles, and the NSF are a bunch of assholes, plain and simple. All's well that ends well, I guess. ---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website: http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
|
|
#6
December 18th 03, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Dec 2003 07:22:23 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote: On 17 Dec 2003 03:18 PM, RR Urban posted the following: (Robert Bonomi) wrote: majority snipped for brevity The 'far frontiers' *ARE* an "attractive nuisance". They draw the kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers like a magnet. *WITHOUT* considering whether Mr. Johanson fits that description, It *is* a fact that "helping" him return from his botched 'adventure' *WOULD* cause those who _do_ fit the "kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers" categorization to be more likely to make their own *ill-prepared* attempts. Resulting in _bigger_ drains on the *limited* resources available. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It appears.... There are two very polorized groups here. Neither will be swayed. Both are right. He took off without covering all the angles, and the NSF are a bunch of assholes, plain and simple. All's well that ends well, I guess. ---------------------------------------------------- Del Rawlins- Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email. Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website: http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/ Plus, I'm not sure everyone understands just how difficult it is to plan for global flights. Jon's is using an RV-4. In many countries, stating what type airplane this is doesn't compute. It causes enormous bureaucratic hassles whenever he touches down in a foreign country because they don't know how to classify the airplane. His trips literally can take years to plan, and then his clearance to overfly a country's airspace may be canceled at a whim. And that's without taking the weather into consideration. His biggest problem during his flights isn't the weather, it's the bureaucracy of the countries upon which he must rely when he lands. When he was returning to Australia for the first trip, he landed in India and almost didn't get out of there. He hadn't done anything wrong, other than land there, it's just that India has taken bureaucracy to stratospheric levels. It's probably what they do best. And this was WITH clearance ahead of time. Corky Scott
|
|
#7
December 18th 03, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
RR Urban wrote in message . ..
(Robert Bonomi) wrote: majority snipped for brevity The 'far frontiers' *ARE* an "attractive nuisance". They draw the kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers like a magnet. *WITHOUT* considering whether Mr. Johanson fits that description, It *is* a fact that "helping" him return from his botched 'adventure' *WOULD* cause those who _do_ fit the "kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers" categorization to be more likely to make their own *ill-prepared* attempts. Resulting in _bigger_ drains on the *limited* resources available. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It appears.... There are two very polorized groups here. Neither will be swayed. At best, you are preaching to the choir. Does have me wondering how the same bunch would vote on Scott vs. Amundsen. The latter exemplified good preparation, good leadership (made one turnback decision when wx too bad), and good planning. The former planned for unfeasible, untested transportation and inadequate, inadequately marked caches. He pressed on beyond the limits of his supplies and failed to take into account known problems, thus killing himself and everyone with him. At the time, Scott was almost deified as a hero, and Amundsen almost vilified. So...here we have a lady who planned ahead and had fuel cached, then who scratched a flight and turned back when it became obvious she couldn't make it to her planned fuel stop. Good planning, pre-flight and enroute. Willing to make the hard calls. Then we have a chap who didn't plan ahead and had fuel cached, and who at some point enroute made a decision to press on rather than turn back and land somewhere he hadn't made prior arrangements for fueling. Not willing to make the hard calls, then expecting others to bail him out from his own failed planning. Naturally he must be a hero. Sydney (Amundsen fan)
|
|
#9
December 18th 03, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:23:19 -0600, RR Urban wrote:
Sydney dear, You and Stella have every right to be super proud of women aviators, especially in the wake of this Jon Johanson fiasco. Too many times, including now... You gals get the short end of the stick. May I apologize for the chauvinistic behavior that might be attributed to me or my chauvinistic buddies. Kudos to Polly... for saving a dumb ass and GA from further embarassment. Barnyard BOb -- Who are you? and what have you done with Bob? - J.O.-
|
|
#10
December 18th 03, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:23:19 -0600, RR Urban wrote:
Sydney dear, You and Stella have every right to be super proud of women aviators, especially in the wake of this Jon Johanson fiasco. Too many times, including now... You gals get the short end of the stick. May I apologize for the chauvinistic behavior that might be attributed to me or my chauvinistic buddies. Kudos to Polly... for saving a dumb ass and GA from further embarassment. Barnyard BOb -- John Ousterhout replied: Who are you? and what have you done with Bob? Shhhh! Do we really care? :-) Russell Kent
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
