Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

From a purely professional point of view -
There are no reasons to outrun your fuel supply...
only excuses.

That kind of pontification might well wait until some facts are in. For
example, suppose headwinds are forecast are 40 knots, his contingency
planning is 60 knots, and the winds turn out to be 100 knots?

A few facts might make a lot of difference in this discussion.

Ed Wischmeyer

From a purely professional point of view -
There are no reasons to outrun your fuel supply...
only excuses.

That kind of pontification might well wait until some facts are in. For
example, suppose headwinds are forecast are 40 knots, his contingency
planning is 60 knots, and the winds turn out to be 100 knots?

Sorry.
Like I've already keenly intimated...
This would be an abominable EXCUSE.

A few facts might make a lot of difference in this discussion.

Ed Wischmeyer

IMO --
If there is *a lot* of difference....
It won't be coming from the ranks of the professionals.


Barnyard BOb --
Professional pilot...
Pontificator in trainig?

In article ,
Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
From a purely professional point of view -
There are no reasons to outrun your fuel supply...
only excuses.

That kind of pontification might well wait until some facts are in. For
example, suppose headwinds are forecast are 40 knots, his contingency
planning is 60 knots, and the winds turn out to be 100 knots?

A few facts might make a lot of difference in this discussion.

The kind of scenario you offer as a possibility would appear to just show
"sadly deficient" contingency planning.

If he ran into headwinds that were SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than _anything_
_ever_previously_recorded_, one can "possibly" make a case, depending on the
quality of the historical data. However, CONTINUING to push ahead, in the
face of such =unanticipated= obstacles, _past_ the "point of no return" to
a safe harbor can only be described as "stupid".

This is not to say that Johanson is that kind of "stupid". Available
reportage indicates that 'higher than anticipated/forecast' headwinds were
encountered, and after pressing to a point where it became clear that he
could not complete the original flight, he diverted to a *pre-planned*
emergency abort point. Available evidence indicates he "assumed", *without*
*confirming*, that persons there "would" provide assistance for him to get
the rest of the way 'back to civilization'.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
news:a9d88$3fe12310
Available
reportage indicates that 'higher than anticipated/forecast' headwinds were
encountered, and after pressing to a point where it became clear that he
could not complete the original flight, he diverted to a *pre-planned*
emergency abort point. Available evidence indicates he "assumed",
*without*
*confirming*, that persons there "would" provide assistance for him to get
the rest of the way 'back to civilization'.

I dunno... let's look at this emperically...

He diverted to a pre-planned emergency landing site, he obtained fuel, he
continued on his way and completed his journey.

Forgiveness wins out over permission again!

Eric

In article ,
Eric Miller wrote:
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
news:a9d88$3fe12310
Available
reportage indicates that 'higher than anticipated/forecast' headwinds were
encountered, and after pressing to a point where it became clear that he
could not complete the original flight, he diverted to a *pre-planned*
emergency abort point. Available evidence indicates he "assumed",
*without*
*confirming*, that persons there "would" provide assistance for him to get
the rest of the way 'back to civilization'.

I dunno... let's look at this emperically...

He diverted to a pre-planned emergency landing site, he obtained fuel, he
continued on his way and completed his journey.

Forgiveness wins out over permission again!

FALSE TO FACT. He got out *only* because somebody (Brit. Polly Vacher)who
_did_ properly plan ahead for a flight through that territory HAD ASKED
PERMISSION, been granted it, and *HAD*THEIR*OWN*EMERGENCY*FUEL*STORED*THERE*.
She encountered weather difficulties, aborted prior to that point, and thus
was able to offer her own private stock of emergency fuel to Johanson.

The fact that she _did_have_ private fuel stored there is absolute proof that
Johanson *could* have done so as well. That fact shoots down any possible
defense of Johanson's actions as regards *competent* contingency planning.

Johanson is enough of a bozo that he _will_not_ "learn from experience", either.
He has publicly stated that on a future attempt he "will _not_ do anything
different". see:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8183083%255E1702,00.html

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
Eric Miller wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
news:a9d88$3fe12310

Available
reportage indicates that 'higher than anticipated/forecast' headwinds were
encountered, and after pressing to a point where it became clear that he
could not complete the original flight, he diverted to a *pre-planned*
emergency abort point. Available evidence indicates he "assumed",

*without*

*confirming*, that persons there "would" provide assistance for him to get
the rest of the way 'back to civilization'.

I dunno... let's look at this emperically...

He diverted to a pre-planned emergency landing site, he obtained fuel, he
continued on his way and completed his journey.

Forgiveness wins out over permission again!


FALSE TO FACT. He got out *only* because somebody (Brit. Polly Vacher)who
_did_ properly plan ahead for a flight through that territory HAD ASKED
PERMISSION, been granted it, and *HAD*THEIR*OWN*EMERGENCY*FUEL*STORED*THERE*.
She encountered weather difficulties, aborted prior to that point, and thus
was able to offer her own private stock of emergency fuel to Johanson.

The fact that she _did_have_ private fuel stored there is absolute proof that
Johanson *could* have done so as well. That fact shoots down any possible
defense of Johanson's actions as regards *competent* contingency planning.

Johanson is enough of a bozo that he _will_not_ "learn from experience", either.
He has publicly stated that on a future attempt he "will _not_ do anything
different". see:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8183083%255E1702,00.html

So what have you done besides write like a moron? That "bozo" as you call him
has done more with his RV-4 than you can ever hope to do with your pitiful life.
People like ought to go crawl in a hole and pull the dirt in. BTW what is it
that you fly and have built with your own hands? Lets hear about your great
accomplishments in aviation.

(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

FALSE TO FACT. He got out *only* because somebody (Brit. Polly Vacher)who
_did_ properly plan ahead for a flight through that territory HAD ASKED
PERMISSION, been granted it, and *HAD*THEIR*OWN*EMERGENCY*FUEL*STORED*THERE*.
She encountered weather difficulties, aborted prior to that point, and thus
was able to offer her own private stock of emergency fuel to Johanson.

The fact that she _did_have_ private fuel stored there is absolute proof that
Johanson *could* have done so as well. That fact shoots down any possible
defense of Johanson's actions as regards *competent* contingency planning.

On a project like this there are only so many things you can plan for.
The fact is that if you are going to plan for every contingency the
trip will never happen. You have to get to the point where the risks
are acceptable and work from there. Polly Vacher is having fuel flown
in by the Argentinians because she also is short of fuel. Perhaps her
planning was better in that she was smart enough not to ask the USA
for help?

Jon Johanson has flown his RV4 around the world 3 times. I doubt you
can do that if your planning really is incompetent.

Andrew

----clip----

People keep laying out 3 times around the world.

Why the fourth attempt? Once would get him in the record book.

He must like playing Russian Roulette and after each circumnavigation
he spins the cylinder and pulls the trigger again. (

Big John

Is he going to keep flying and trying until he buys the farm and goes
in the record book that way??????????????///



Jon Johanson has flown his RV4 around the world 3 times. I doubt you
can do that if your planning really is incompetent.

Big John wrote:

People keep laying out 3 times around the world.

Why the fourth attempt? Once would get him in the record book.

He must like playing Russian Roulette and after each circumnavigation
he spins the cylinder and pulls the trigger again. (

I guess he likes doing that type of flying. Why do any of us fly? This
is rec.aviation.homebuit, why would someone build their own aircraft?
Why do some people build several aircraft?

There isn't really a cutoff point between safe and risky. There is
just increasing degrees of risk, and different people draw the line at
different points. All these things are risky:
- flying light aircraft
- flying homebuilt aircraft
- flying single engine at night
- flying SE in IMC
- flying SE over water
- flying to Antarctica

I am sure that there are people in this group who would do things that
I would not do because I consider them too risky. Likewise I know a
lot of people who consider flying too risky. It's just different
perceptions, and the risks you are prepared to take to do what you
want to do.

Big John wrote:
Andrew

----clip----

People keep laying out 3 times around the world.

Why the fourth attempt? Once would get him in the record book.

Well then, the obvious answer is the record book is not his motivation.
It must be the thrill of setting a goal and meeting it in the face of
great odds, eh?