Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

entire legions of lawyers waiting to sue the US Government for supplying him
the wrong type of fuel?

Johanson's machine is the Ozzie equivalent of experimental, amateur
built (they recently copied the US regs on that), and more or less, he
can probably burn what he wants.

As for alcohol, as I understand it, the effects of ethyl alcohol are
confined to possible rubber (real and synthetic) deterioration. That
doesn't happen instantaneously, and I bet he could refuel with any fuel
of suitable octane, launch, and then purge the fuel system at a later stop.

As for suing folks, I don't think Jon's that kind of guy. I've met him
several times, and he's got a whole lot of class, something that many
RAHers would do well to emulate.

Ed Wischmeyer

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:17:24 -0700, Ed Wischmeyer
wrote:

entire legions of lawyers waiting to sue the US Government for supplying him
the wrong type of fuel?

Johanson's machine is the Ozzie equivalent of experimental, amateur
built (they recently copied the US regs on that), and more or less, he
can probably burn what he wants.

As for alcohol, as I understand it, the effects of ethyl alcohol are
confined to possible rubber (real and synthetic) deterioration. That
doesn't happen instantaneously, and I bet he could refuel with any fuel
of suitable octane, launch, and then purge the fuel system at a later stop.

I agree he could legally run alcohol-laced auto-fuel. Perhaps it wouldn't
cause problems in the short term. But there's a *lot* of very cold, wet,
water between Antarctica and New Zealand. Not where I'd want to
experiment.

Years ago, one of the guys in the Fly Baby club inadvertently put gasohol
in the airplane. I just flew it for a bit, landed and put in "pure" gas,
then repeated the process the same day. Goal was to get the alcohol
diluted as quickly as possible. Same might have worked for Johanson.

As for suing folks, I don't think Jon's that kind of guy. I've met him
several times, and he's got a whole lot of class, something that many
RAHers would do well to emulate.

Unfortunately, government and corporate risk managers don't make their
decisions on whether a given person might sue them, they base them on
whether they *could* get sued.

Personally, I think Johanson's legitimacy as a long-distance aviator is
thoroughly established. I think the NSF should have agreed to help.
There's already Antarctic tourism both by plane and by sea, it's not like
they'd be setting some sort of precedent.

Ron Wanttaja

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:33:11 GMT, "Felger Carbon"
wrote:

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
"Rich S." wrote in message
...

Ahead of me, barely visible through the haze was El Toro Marine
Air Station.

Correction. Now that I think on it, it may have been a Navy Air
base. Can't
remember and too lazy to look up a chart.

You were probably over the old blimp base (with its two famous blimp
hangars), which was converted to a Marine helicopter training base for
Vietnam.

Actually he was over the Oscoda Air Base here in Michigan which is why
he was so low on fuel.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:46:29 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

:On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:18:58 -0800 "Rich S." wrote:
:
: "Rich S." wrote in message
: ...
:
: Ahead of me, barely visible through the haze was El Toro Marine
: Air Station.
:
: Correction. Now that I think on it, it may have been a Navy Air base. Can't
: remember and too lazy to look up a chart.
:
:May have been the base in Tustin, can't remember the name of it. Huge
:hangars.
:
:R. Hubbell

It was called, appropriately enough, MCAS Tustin. The hangars are
used occasionally for movie sets now. The surface of the moon in Tom
Hanks "From Earth to the Moon" was shot there. And in "Pearl Harbor"
it's the practice airfield where Doolittle's people fly off in B-25's.
You'll see in those shots they never show the horizion - modern
buildings in all directions.

In article ,
Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:26:37 +0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:



Yeah, but to not even sell the guy fuel is bad form......

*WHY* ??

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".


Robert
the flight plan as I know of it was for a direct flight, no stops, New
Zealand, South Pole, Argentina

when you go out for a local flight do you have fuel stashed every ten
miles ? or do you plan on returning to an airfield with fuel supplies?

Me, I "plan ahead", and make sure I have contingencies covered. when I
go to a "no services" area, I make sure I know where the nearest services
are, and *HAVE*A*PLAN* for getting to them, or them to me, _if_needed_.


Jon made all the preparations necessary but was caught by headwinds
that were not anything like forecast.

They were _not_ "unreasonable" for the locale and season.

He -chose-, *consciously*, to operate without a safety net.

Either he failed to properly research the situation, or
he _was_ fully aware of the 'lack of services' at the facility,.
(It is -not- a new policy -- the policy has been uniform and
unvarying for 30+ years) and *deliberately* chose to ignore it.

Either way, he deserves to 'live with' the consequences of that decision.


The guy has stainless steel courage and a precise methodical approach
to his flight planning. he is well aware that a ditching anywhere
along the route would see him dead from hypothermia within 15 minutes.
to do what he does takes a rare courage.

All well and good. If he was "that well prepared", he has *NO*GROUND*
for any 'surprise', or complaints about the 'lack of services' at a
place that has had a policy in place for 30+ years.

Proper planning involves identifying the points one "might" have to
divert to, *AND* ensuring that the resources you "might need" are available
_at_ those points. If 'locally stockpiled' supplies are not available to you,
you make plans for either: shipping in "whatever you might need" in advance,
and shipping it back out again (if not needed), or to ship in what you "do"
need, when you actually do need it.

**** happens occasionally. lets hope that when it happens to you there
are compasionate humans around to help you.

**** _has_ happened to me.

from experience I can tell you that breaking an aeroplane 1,500 miles
from home can make you the lonliest guy on the planet.

Yup. no argument.

you can make a
lot of good friends in times like those.

Yup.

....or you can be screwed by
arseholes.





I hope you get a chance to meet him. he's a top guy. for his
inspirational courage we made him a life member of the Sport Aircraft
Association of Australia

I don't doubt _that_.

The fact remains that the flight was a "gamble".

And he was -not- "self sufficient", for "support services".

The base has resources on hand, that are sufficient for _their_ needs.
If they provide consumables to Johnson, then they'll have to ship in
replacements for their own use.

Since it'll have to be shipped in *regardless*, why shouldn't _Johnson_
have to arrange the shipping for "his own consumables"? What would he
do if the base facilities _weren't_ there?

If there's "no space available" on the inbound transport, that _would_
seem to be a good reason for not selling 'already delivered' supplies
to Johnson -- they *cannot* be replaced.

What if all of those persons who are sympathetic to Jon Johanson's plight
were to put their money where their mouth is, start a fund, hire a whatever,
send a hero, make us all cry tears of joy, and save Jon. I do not write
this with animosity. Prove to me that there is a legitimate fund in place
and I'll send five bucks. And I've never even heard of the guy before I
started reading these strings.

Forrest


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
ervers.com...
In article ,
ET wrote:
"Jimmy Galvin" wrote in
:

You can offer all apologies all you want but only for yourself. Don't
talk for me. I feel that he took a chance for glory, self promotion,
stupidity, or whatever and ended up with his tit caught in the
wringer. It is not up to me and my tax dollars to bail his sorry ass
out of the jamb he inflected on himself. This goes for all those fools
that climb mountains, trek through caves, or go exploring in the woods
relying on a GPS with 1/2 dead batteries to guide them along. They
should all just be left to their own devices and hopefully receive a
Darwin Award for their efforts.


Yeah, but to not even sell the guy fuel is bad form......

*WHY* ??

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".

You don't know much about EAA and homebuilt aircraft it sounds like. Find a book
he wrote telling about his experiences flying around the world a couple of times
in his experimental RV-4. The book is called "Aiming High"

Jerry

Forrest wrote:
What if all of those persons who are sympathetic to Jon Johanson's plight
were to put their money where their mouth is, start a fund, hire a whatever,
send a hero, make us all cry tears of joy, and save Jon. I do not write
this with animosity. Prove to me that there is a legitimate fund in place
and I'll send five bucks. And I've never even heard of the guy before I
started reading these strings.

Forrest


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
ervers.com...

In article ,
ET wrote:

"Jimmy Galvin" wrote in
:


You can offer all apologies all you want but only for yourself. Don't
talk for me. I feel that he took a chance for glory, self promotion,
stupidity, or whatever and ended up with his tit caught in the
wringer. It is not up to me and my tax dollars to bail his sorry ass
out of the jamb he inflected on himself. This goes for all those fools
that climb mountains, trek through caves, or go exploring in the woods
relying on a GPS with 1/2 dead batteries to guide them along. They
should all just be left to their own devices and hopefully receive a
Darwin Award for their efforts.


Yeah, but to not even sell the guy fuel is bad form......

*WHY* ??

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".

In article l83Db.539930$HS4.4109702@attbi_s01,
Cy Galley wrote:
WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE ADVANCE ARRANGEMENTS to ship _his_own_ fuel there?

Using that rational, everyone should ship repair parts and tools to possible
landing places like The Oshkosh convention just in case they have a problem.
--
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh


*IF*AND*WHEN* Oshkosh has a _published_policy_ of =not= providing services,
and there's nobody "in the neighborhood" who will, for hire, deliver services
on site, then "yes", it'd be a *damn* good idea.

The point is, you *CHECK*FIRST*. _IF_ services *are* available on-site, no
problem. *IF*NOT*, you damn well better make 'alternate arrangements', "just
in case". It's known as "insurance".

There are only a couple of possible scenarios:
1) He *DID*NOT* plan for 'what to do' in the case of problems with the
flight. Problems then developed, and he 'got lucky' and survived.
2) He _did_ consider 'what to do' in the case of problems, and McMurdo
was a *planned* emergency alternative. If so, Johnson either didn't
check on services availability, didn't care that it was published that
services wee *not* available, or assumed the published rules "didn't
apply" to him.

In either scenario, I have a very difficult time seeing how is is _possible_
to consider the fault to lay anywhere _other_ than with Johnson. Looks to me
like the issue is 100% of _his_own_making_. *DUE*TO*BAD*AND/OR*INSUFFICIENT*
*PLANNING* for contingency situations.


_Anyone_ who travels to/through/across "uninhabited" territory, by -whatever-
means, better have plans for what to do 'if things go wrong'. It doesn't
matter if it's flying across Antarctica, sailing across the Pacific, driving
across the desert, or going for a hike in the mountains, the principle is the
same. If those contingency plans involve "somebody else" bailing you out of
a jam, it is STUPID _not_ to verify that they are 'ready, willing, and able'
to do so, *before* setting out.

Johnson appears to have failed badly at this basic element of project planning.

Maybe I might put that somewhere on my list of things to do someday.
Forrest

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
news
You don't know much about EAA and homebuilt aircraft it sounds like. Find
a book
he wrote telling about his experiences flying around the world a couple of
times
in his experimental RV-4. The book is called "Aiming High"

Jerry

Forrest wrote:
What if all of those persons who are sympathetic to Jon Johanson's
plight
were to put their money where their mouth is, start a fund, hire a
whatever,
send a hero, make us all cry tears of joy, and save Jon. I do not write
this with animosity. Prove to me that there is a legitimate fund in
place
and I'll send five bucks. And I've never even heard of the guy before I
started reading these strings.

Forrest


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
ervers.com...

In article ,
ET wrote:

"Jimmy Galvin" wrote in
:


You can offer all apologies all you want but only for yourself. Don't
talk for me. I feel that he took a chance for glory, self promotion,
stupidity, or whatever and ended up with his tit caught in the
wringer. It is not up to me and my tax dollars to bail his sorry ass
out of the jamb he inflected on himself. This goes for all those fools
that climb mountains, trek through caves, or go exploring in the woods
relying on a GPS with 1/2 dead batteries to guide them along. They
should all just be left to their own devices and hopefully receive a
Darwin Award for their efforts.


Yeah, but to not even sell the guy fuel is bad form......

*WHY* ??

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".

By the way, I meant what I said about the five bucks.
Forrest

"Forrest" wrote in message
...
Maybe I might put that somewhere on my list of things to do someday.
Forrest

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
news
You don't know much about EAA and homebuilt aircraft it sounds like.
Find
a book
he wrote telling about his experiences flying around the world a couple
of
times
in his experimental RV-4. The book is called "Aiming High"

Jerry

Forrest wrote:
What if all of those persons who are sympathetic to Jon Johanson's
plight
were to put their money where their mouth is, start a fund, hire a
whatever,
send a hero, make us all cry tears of joy, and save Jon. I do not
write
this with animosity. Prove to me that there is a legitimate fund in
place
and I'll send five bucks. And I've never even heard of the guy before
I
started reading these strings.

Forrest


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
ervers.com...

In article ,
ET wrote:

"Jimmy Galvin" wrote in
:


You can offer all apologies all you want but only for yourself.
Don't
talk for me. I feel that he took a chance for glory, self promotion,
stupidity, or whatever and ended up with his tit caught in the
wringer. It is not up to me and my tax dollars to bail his sorry ass
out of the jamb he inflected on himself. This goes for all those
fools
that climb mountains, trek through caves, or go exploring in the
woods
relying on a GPS with 1/2 dead batteries to guide them along. They
should all just be left to their own devices and hopefully receive a
Darwin Award for their efforts.


Yeah, but to not even sell the guy fuel is bad form......

*WHY* ??

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".