Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

That 'bawaaaaah' is worth another five bucks.


"Jimmy Galvin" wrote in message
...
Like I said SELF PROMOTION. Only this time he screwed up. He would make a
profit out of his flight and had no intentions of sharing that profit with
the ground crew. Now he wants them to support his flight by bailing his
sorry ass out of a jamb. As far as I'm concerned both he and you can stick
it.
"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".

I understand your sentiment here. But I'm not talking about congress
bashing here. I'm talking about the free world of aviation "association"
giving a guy a hand for Christmas to bail his little mistaken ass out of the
'free continent' of Antarctica. Ya' got five bucks to use to bypass the
pork barrel and help send a message? Don't say you don't have it. Hell, I
can scratch up five bucks in aluminum cans off of my local highway. The
message can be sent to congress by the successful establishment of the "Save
Jon Johanson's Stupid Ass Trust Fund". And I'm already in for twenty five
bucks.

Merry Christmas (or what ever your favorite holiday of love is)
Forrest


"Eric Miller" wrote in message
.net...
"Jimmy Galvin" wrote in message
...
Excellent idea. Like Congress has nothing better to do.

Yeah, they got a full schedule of pork barrel and creating new holidays.

Eric

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:12:52 +0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

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

munch

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.


you really are a typical yank.

the guy's name is Jon Johanson. Johnson are the guys who market floor
wax. there is a difference there that even you should find obvious.

Stealth ( we'll end it there. ) Pilot

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:22:29 -0500, "Jimmy Galvin"
wrote:

Like I said SELF PROMOTION. Only this time he screwed up. He would make a
profit out of his flight and had no intentions of sharing that profit with
the ground crew. Now he wants them to support his flight by bailing his
sorry ass out of a jamb. As far as I'm concerned both he and you can stick
it.

make it a point to meet the guy one day. you'll be humbled beyond
belief to find that he makes absolutely no profit from the flights.
They take most of his savings and he returns to work on his return.

The guy is a registered nurse and he is privately pushing the edges of
what pilots can achieve, gradually developing the aircraft and his
approaches to human endurance.

his almost bog standard Vans RV4 must be the most capable example of
the design ever evolved. when I last had a coffee with him his
aircraft was severely stretching the envelope to achieve a dead air
range of 1250 nautical miles. what he has achieved since then is mind
boggling.

Stealth (you have to have a mind though :-) ) Pilot

make it a point to meet the guy one day. you'll be humbled beyond
belief to find that he makes absolutely no profit from the flights.
They take most of his savings and he returns to work on his return.

The guy is a registered nurse and he is privately pushing the edges of
what pilots can achieve, gradually developing the aircraft and his
approaches to human endurance.

his almost bog standard Vans RV4 must be the most capable example of
the design ever evolved. when I last had a coffee with him his
aircraft was severely stretching the envelope to achieve a dead air
range of 1250 nautical miles. what he has achieved since then is mind
boggling.

Stealth (you have to have a mind though :-) ) Pilot
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

If Jon is half the man you believe him to be...
He will admit this to you this himself.

My hat goes off to Polly.
She may not have completed her intended journey, but...
no question, she a true professional to be respected for
first class judgment, generosity and compassion for a
nurse embarrassingly caught with his tit in the wringer.

Barnyard BOb --
I may be on fire, but luckily....
I have plenty of fuel.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
ET 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?

If the farmer is smart, he'll sell it to him for ten times what he paid
to get it to his farm/polar ice cap, and then go back and buy a ten
year's supply of gas.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

The bureaucrats at McMurdo are simply being jerks of the first order!
How many people on this planet benefit from such obstinate behavior?

Those who would otherwise follow in Johanson's footsteps and set out
on a mission without planning proper contingencies. I for one
wouldn't want to see the base personnel and resources diverted to
subsidize poor planning of those who are in over their head,
encouraging even more "extreme adventurers" to try something dumb.

Mark Hickey

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

Mark Hickey wrote:
Orval Fairbairn wrote:


The bureaucrats at McMurdo are simply being jerks of the first order!
How many people on this planet benefit from such obstinate behavior?


Those who would otherwise follow in Johanson's footsteps and set out
on a mission without planning proper contingencies. I for one
wouldn't want to see the base personnel and resources diverted to
subsidize poor planning of those who are in over their head,
encouraging even more "extreme adventurers" to try something dumb.

I for one hate that trite phrase "I for one".

This guy isn't some doofus who strapped on a pile of helium balloons on
his lawnchair and tried to go into orbit. He's out there taking
homebuilding and private aviation to the next level, pushing what humans
can do, even if they don't have a billion dollars of government funding
behind them. I rank him up there with the X Prize contestants.

They should have left him alone with the gas source, and told him they
were going to lunch and they'd be back in an hour.

Mark Hickey

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?