Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

"RR Urban" wrote in message
...

heard from Jarvis that Jon got out of there by getting fuel from
an
English woman

No problem. A girl bailed him out, very graciously. She's a 99.
The
Flyin
Wimmen will come through for you!

Here's the latest on her...and I rather wonder why we don't hear
much
about her
project.


Because shes one of them wimon yokes, not a foolish man child who
didn't plan his fuel properly. While I may give out about his not
sending fuel ahead to ensure his safe return, I would have gone to a
lot of troubble getting somemore.:-)
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)



http://www.worldwings.org/


On 18 Dec 2003 05:50:36 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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 --

(Snowbird) wrote:

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.

As far as I can see that is exactly what he did do - turn back and
land somewhere where he had not made arrangements for refueling,
instead of pressing on into risky weather. Having determined that he
couldn't make it to Argentina, he wanted to land at a different base,
but the weather made it too risky.

I would equate him to Amundsen in your analogy, right down to the
vilification. He isn't dead, no one had to risk their lives looking
for him (despite the American statements about risking their lives
etc.) and he landed with 7 hours of fuel left. To me he made a
sensible call to land rather than push on, and the
availability/unavailability of fuel didn't influence the decision.
Better to worry about that once you are safely on the ground.

He did say they made a mistake in not making the decision until after
it was too late to return to New Zealand, which seems like a fair
assessment to me.

Sydney

They did give him room and board. so can't be all bad.


Big John


On 18 Dec 2003 05:50:36 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

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)

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Sydney

They did give him room and board. so can't be all bad.


Big John

What did you expect them to do, provide him a campsite in the permafrost?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:02:23 +0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote:
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:


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.


I'm curious. Has someone rearranged the keys on your keyboard? Perhaps
your writing is a language with which I'm not familiar. No, wait,
maybe it is a speed reading style. Whatever, it ain't working on me.

Robert

Finally out of Hospital (

Any idea where we can get the Wx briefing he got? They well could have
forecast the wx correctly and included the wind that did him in.

Big John

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:02:23 +0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

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.

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Robert

Finally out of Hospital (

Lets hope the outcome is better than you first anticapated.

Best Wishes,
Jonathan Lowe.


Any idea where we can get the Wx briefing he got? They well could
have
forecast the wx correctly and included the wind that did him in.

Big John

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:02:23 +0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

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.