Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

RR Urban wrote:

Hey Jaun....
Nothing like having friends.
Know where I can find some? )

Barnyard BOb --

*chuckle*
Oh BOb. I only snipe at you because I can and it's apparently one
of my core competencies (isn't *THAT* pathetic...) If I had
anything *USEFUL* to contribute you know I'd do that (maybe instead
of this, or maybe in addition; sniping at you is pretty satisfying
:-)

Maybe we'll both make it back to PJY next year. Or since you're
retired you could pop on down to visit (TKI is nearest), if you'd
like a litte face-to-face abuse. :-) Leave the dog at home (our
cats would go ballistic.)

Russell Kent

Hey Jaun....
Nothing like having friends.
Know where I can find some? )

Barnyard BOb --

*chuckle*
Oh BOb. I only snipe at you because I can and it's apparently one
of my core competencies (isn't *THAT* pathetic...) If I had
anything *USEFUL* to contribute you know I'd do that (maybe instead
of this, or maybe in addition; sniping at you is pretty satisfying
:-)

Maybe we'll both make it back to PJY next year. Or since you're
retired you could pop on down to visit (TKI is nearest), if you'd
like a litte face-to-face abuse. :-) Leave the dog at home (our
cats would go ballistic.)

Russell Kent
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Snipe away, good friend.
I have no problem with you giving
someone more worthy a rest. g

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

FWIW --
My dog is not a real dog.
He's a Siberian Husky, which in many ways is....
a cat trapped in a dog's body.


Barnyard BOb --

(Snowbird) wrote:

Well, NewsLady, you'd know best but...

...my guess is, *she plans too well*

Good planning and good decision making, don't seem to be news.

Sydney (so when's the next trip?)

I have heard quite a lot about how she planned properly etc. etc. but
I am not sure of the difference in reality. She also ran short of fuel
due to weather. Argentina is flying in fuel specially so she can get
out of Antarctica.

As far as I can see they both ran into problems where their fuel
wasn't in the same place as their aircraft. However her fuel was in
the same place as his aircraft, and she was kind enough to allow him
to use it.

(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

Yeah. She did _proper_ "plan ahead", and had _her_own_ fuel at McMurdo.
Had equipment troubles, and had to abort the around-the-world attempt.

Her "equipment troubles" was running short of fuel.

(Snowbird) wrote:

Does have me wondering how the same bunch would vote on
Scott vs. Amundsen. The latter exemplified good preparation,
good leadership (made one turnback decision when wx too bad),
and good planning. The former planned for unfeasible, untested
transportation and inadequate, inadequately marked caches. He
pressed on beyond the limits of his supplies and failed to take
into account known problems, thus killing himself and everyone
with him.

At the time, Scott was almost deified as a hero, and Amundsen
almost vilified.

So...here we have a lady who planned ahead and had fuel cached,
then who scratched a flight and turned back when it became
obvious she couldn't make it to her planned fuel stop. Good
planning, pre-flight and enroute. Willing to make the hard
calls.

Then we have a chap who didn't plan ahead and had fuel cached,
and who at some point enroute made a decision to press on
rather than turn back and land somewhere he hadn't made prior
arrangements for fueling.

As far as I can see that is exactly what he did do - turn back and
land somewhere where he had not made arrangements for refueling,
instead of pressing on into risky weather. Having determined that he
couldn't make it to Argentina, he wanted to land at a different base,
but the weather made it too risky.

I would equate him to Amundsen in your analogy, right down to the
vilification. He isn't dead, no one had to risk their lives looking
for him (despite the American statements about risking their lives
etc.) and he landed with 7 hours of fuel left. To me he made a
sensible call to land rather than push on, and the
availability/unavailability of fuel didn't influence the decision.
Better to worry about that once you are safely on the ground.

He did say they made a mistake in not making the decision until after
it was too late to return to New Zealand, which seems like a fair
assessment to me.

(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.

Robert

Finally out of Hospital (

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.

Sydney

They did give him room and board. so can't be all bad.


Big John


On 18 Dec 2003 05:50:36 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

RR Urban wrote in message . ..
(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.

Does have me wondering how the same bunch would vote on
Scott vs. Amundsen. The latter exemplified good preparation,
good leadership (made one turnback decision when wx too bad),
and good planning. The former planned for unfeasible, untested
transportation and inadequate, inadequately marked caches. He
pressed on beyond the limits of his supplies and failed to take
into account known problems, thus killing himself and everyone
with him.

At the time, Scott was almost deified as a hero, and Amundsen
almost vilified.

So...here we have a lady who planned ahead and had fuel cached,
then who scratched a flight and turned back when it became
obvious she couldn't make it to her planned fuel stop. Good
planning, pre-flight and enroute. Willing to make the hard
calls.

Then we have a chap who didn't plan ahead and had fuel cached,
and who at some point enroute made a decision to press on
rather than turn back and land somewhere he hadn't made prior
arrangements for fueling. Not willing to make the hard calls,
then expecting others to bail him out from his own failed
planning.

Naturally he must be a hero.

Sydney (Amundsen fan)

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.

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

I guess OBE really means if you procrastinate long enough, the problem
will solve its self???????????


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:49:42 -0800, "Morgans"
wrote:


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

OBE as one of my old bosses used to say.

Big John

???