Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

(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.


Barnyard BOb -- choir boy

nafod40 wrote

Way back when I was just a tadpole on my pappy's knee, he was an aviator
in VX-6, the Navy's Antarctic Exploration Squadron (formerly known as
the Puckered Penguins, which had a cool patch that showed a shnockered
penguin with a bottle of XXX in one flipper and a cigar in the other,
which they then changed later to a kinder/gentler "Ice Pirates", which
sure sounded a little too much like A-- Pirates to me). Those guys flew
down to "the ice" in their DC-4s, with a few weather ships stationed
along the way, and their spinning compasses, etc. Once there after many
turnbacks at the point-of-no-return, they would lose a few planes each
season, as they went where no man had gone before. High adventure, baby!
I have a special place in my heart for Antartic aviators.

I applaud our Aussie friend for going for it, treaties and weather be
damned. Rules are for regular people. He took the big odds in a
calculated risk. Power to him. I can just imagine hour after hour over
the loneliest, most unfriendly to life terrain on this planet, bar no
other. Like an endless 0/0 night carrier landing. In a homebuilt that
could have come out of my garage, if I had half the cajones. I salute
you, my friend.

Mike

Man you said it Mike. In my opinion we should accomplish the
following:

1. Submit the intrepid Azzie's name to the National Geographic Society
for an award and televised follow up. This would:

2. Publicly embarrass those worthless, arrogant, self-serving
government "Alpha Hotels" at the U.S facility down there.

3. Offer a formal apology to the fine man and his government.

4. Ship those self-rightous *******s home with a severence package
minus Polly's expenses to ship and store fuel.

5. Privatize the facility, staff it with private-sector FBO talent
that can show a little humanity from time to time.

6. Prospect and drill for Oil to take the entire enterprise out of
U.S. gov hands. (highest int'l bidder gets the oil tracts.)

7. France and Germany need not be involved since there's no need to
sell weapons to the indigenous cigar-smoking penguins down there.


DC-4's to Antartica! Man, the Duke would be proud. (but I must
confess: the only round-motors I want to fly anymore are the kinds you
can see through! ;-) Especially when its sub-zero down there!
Had a number of Polar flights and could never understand why we were
studying Grid navigation with 3 INS's (what are those odds?). One day
we ran into unforecast headwinds PANC-EGSS and couldn't make it. Had
to land in Keflevick unannounced in a white out situation. Durring
the roll out could not see the runway at all. Almost lost my cool.
No, the artic/antartic wastes should not be little kingdoms for the
bueracrats.. Jon's flight is the kind of flight free men occationally
take. Let's all buy him a Foster's just for pulling it off.

pacplyer - out

The definition of a plan: A place to start making changes

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'.

In article ,
Stealth Pilot wrote:
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.

Ex-kiwi, thank you.

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.

You're quite correct. D*mn spell-checker 'fixed' things, and I didn't
catch it.

"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

AVweb quotes an EAA staffer in saying that they don't even stock avgas down
there. What's needed is space on a cargo plane for hauling it down there,
and I suspect there's more too it than just throwing some jerry cans on a
pallet.

Even so, it sounds like the NSF is being its old hidebound self. There's a
good book out, written by an ex-Navy pilot who used be one of the Hercules
pilots down the _Flying Upside Down_, by Mark A. Hinebaugh. He really
makes the NSF (the agency in charge of US operations in Antarctica) sound
like a bunch of idiots.

Ron Wanttaja

They are. I worked on this problem with the Governor of Nevada last
week and many retired politicians that I know. They applied a lot of
pressure but really got nowhere. I am out of town right now but I
heard from Jarvis that Jon got out of there by getting fuel from an
English woman on an Around the world flight who was on the continent
at the same time. Anyone know the details?
Bill

In article ,
nafod40 wrote:
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.


Postulate it's 'planting time', his next delivery is in 5 days, and he
has just enough 'on hand' to fuel his tractors till the scheduled delivery.
Supplying the pilot would idle a tractor for a day. That can translate
to _tens_of_thousands_ of dollars of lost revenue at harvest.

At $500/gal. one might be approaching the 'opportunity cost' of selling
that fuel to the plane owner.

Still think he's "smart" to sell the fuel at 'only' 10x cost?

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.

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.

http://www.worldwings.org/

"Big John" wrote in message
...
To give closure.

OBE as one of my old bosses used to say.

Big John

???