A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old December 20th 03, 05:04 AM
Larry Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #142  
Old December 20th 03, 09:31 AM
pacplyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey Big John,

Hope you're back fully ready for combat soon. :-) Saw your Greenland
punchout anniversary posting but couldn't comment since my machine was
on the blink. How did that turn out?

pacplyer
  #143  
Old December 20th 03, 09:45 AM
Andrew Rowley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #144  
Old December 20th 03, 10:03 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Big John" wrote in message
news
Morgans

Just back out of hospital and in slow recovery (

"OBE" acronym = "Overtaken by events"

Thread has continued for a number of days after he left and on his
way.

Big John


Understand. Me too. Back surgery (2nd time) the end of July. I'm still
not happy. They say recovery could take a year, but realistically, I'm not
going to get much better.

Continued need for painkillers means no medical in sight. Boooo. Morning
flying on Sport ticket may be all I have left. Afternoons without
painkillers are VERY uncomfortable, to say the least..

Good luck, and good healing. Out.
--
Jim in NC


  #145  
Old December 20th 03, 04:23 PM
Jerry Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Andrew Rowley wrote:
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

Very good points andrew. Jon has flown his RV-4 around the wotrld three time
plus many other distance flights to many places.
On the other hand I lost a friend last week that was just flying 20 miles to
have lunch.

  #146  
Old December 21st 03, 09:33 PM
John Ousterhout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:38:59 -0600, RR Urban wrote:


I am planning to make PJY for 2004
if JJ is still up to making it happen.


You bum. No feeble excuses will be accepted next year. If the
weather at breakfast time precludes flight then you can drive to
Pinckneyville in time for lunch. You could even bring Shane.

- J.O.-


  #147  
Old December 21st 03, 10:33 PM
RR Urban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I am planning to make PJY for 2004
if JJ is still up to making it happen.


You bum. No feeble excuses will be accepted next year. If the
weather at breakfast time precludes flight then you can drive to
Pinckneyville in time for lunch. You could even bring Shane.

- J.O.-

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey..., no big deal.
It's not like you guys and gals
haven't seen a real live corpse before.

OTOH..
If Shane came along, sled rides could
be fun.... if proper medical support was
available to care for the injured.

Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog.
  #148  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:29 PM
nafod40
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

  #149  
Old December 22nd 03, 05:06 PM
RR Urban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


nafod40 wrote:

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?

++++++++++++++

"Obvious"?
"Must be"?


Barnyard BOb -

  #150  
Old December 24th 03, 05:42 PM
Model Flyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.