Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

[John Ammeter]

Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
getting out of Antartica....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/20031210/od_nm/adventurer_dc

[Rob Turk]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
> RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
> getting out of Antartica....
>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/20031210/od_nm/adventurer_dc

The story even made to Uber-geek site www.slashdot.org
Rob

[Cam]

On behalf of all normal Kiwi's . I appologise for our sick burocratic
politcaly correct government *******s (Bitches)
Cam..........



"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
> Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
> RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
> getting out of Antartica....
>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/2003
1210/od_nm/adventurer_dc

[Jimmy Galvin]

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.
"Cam" > wrote in message
...
> On behalf of all normal Kiwi's . I appologise for our sick burocratic
> politcaly correct government *******s (Bitches)
> Cam..........
>
>
>
> "John Ammeter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
> > RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
> > getting out of Antartica....
> >
> >
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/2003
> 1210/od_nm/adventurer_dc
>
>

[ET]

"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......

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[BllFs6]

While 80 gallons or so of fuel may not be much...we must ask a few things....

Can the base really spare it? (though I suspect that they could.....)

Secondly......while the fuel may only be a buck or 2 a gallon....its REAL cost
down in Antartica is probably ALOT more....wouldnt surprise me if its 10 to 50
times more in real cost (those Antartic cargo lifts dont come cheap).....just
as a gallon of water is free but once you get it into orbit its LITERALLY worth
about 80,000 dollars (NASA should start sending up midgets to save costs)

My main question would be....he had to know that there was a FAIR chance he
would have to turn around and refuel....but did he even BOTHER to check with
officials at various bases if he could sleep there or get fuel and food if he
needed to?

If he didnt EVEN do that I say screw em...

maybe give him the fuel at its real cost if they can spare it....but give him a
10 to 20k $ "stupidity/arrogance" charge if he never bothered to ask before he
took off...

take care

Blll

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:34:57 GMT, 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....
>
>Yeah, but to not even sell the guy fuel is bad form......

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 there: _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

[nafod40]

Jimmy Galvin wrote:
> 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.

Hi Jimmy,

This guy's out there pushing the bounds of what Man can do, and doing it
with homebuilt aircraft no less, and you're squawking about gallons of
gas. You sound like those chicken%$# NASA 'crats that told our
astronauts not to talk to Denis Tito on the ISS. What a bunch of
tight%^& jerks. It's said to me that the ultimate obstavle to Jon's
flying over the pole is not headwinds, but $#%holes.

> 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.

You should receive a "One Foot In The Grave" award for leading your life
of quiet desperation.

[Jimmy Galvin]

He was not welcome in 1989 and apparently things have not changed. If he
inquired 1st he probably would have been denied permission to land. So he
went on his merry way figuring that if he got in trouble he would just force
himself on them. He is getting the hospitality he deserves. They should just
push his plane off the strip and let it become another "Glacier Gal".
"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "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......
>
> --
> ET >:)
>
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Rich S.]

"BllFs6" > wrote in message
...

> While 80 gallons or so of fuel may not be much...we must ask a few
things....

<snip>

That must have been SOME headwind to burn an extra 80 gallons. . .

Rich S.

[BllFs6]

>> While 80 gallons or so of fuel may not be much...we must ask a few
>things....
>
><snip>
>
>That must have been SOME headwind to burn an extra 80 gallons. . .
>
>Rich S.
>

The article doesnt seem to give the details....but i would guess its not so
much that the HEADWIND burned the whole 80 gallons so much as the fact the
headwind was gonna keep him from making it all the way....so once he reached
the halfway point....or so....and he turned around....so its probably like 10
to 20 percent of the fuel was due to headwind burning and the rest was just
normal fuel consumption...AND antartica has some of the strongest, most
consistent/continous head winds on the planet....due to its unique geographic
layout....

besides....i still say it was a boneheaded glory stunt that accomplished
NOTHING....and HAD already been done..and he apparently KNEW he wasnt
welcome....(which is WORSE than not knowing if he was/wasnt)....he failed to
plan properly....tough cookies....

take care

Blll

[Anonymo421]

> It's said to me that the ultimate obstavle to Jon's
>flying over the pole is not headwinds, but $#%holes.

Chief among them being the one Johanson's head was up when he neglected to
cache fuel along his intended route....

[Richard Isakson]

My brother over-wintered at Siple Station in Antartica about thirty years
ago. I called him today for his view on this. McMurdo Base is the main US
supply base for most US operations in Antartica. The New Zealand base is
"just around the corner, within walking distance". Most vehicles down there
run on diesel fuel but they would have some gasoline for Ski Doo type
vehicles. The main runway is built on sea ice and it will breakup within a
month. In January icebreakers will carve a path to McMurdo for supply ships
to get in but those ships are already loaded and on their way. Cruise ships
visit the area during the brief summer. My brother was surprised the they
made him sleep in the fuel shed. Even in the summer McMurdo has lots of
barracks space.

Shipping to Antrartica is very expensive. If he has to hire a Twin Otter to
fly in fuel, he might find it's cheaper to abandon the airplane there. My
brother thinks they're playing hardball just to keep others away.

Rich

[Mike Borgelt]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:37:38 -0800, "Richard Isakson"
> wrote:

>My brother over-wintered at Siple Station in Antartica about thirty years
>ago. I called him today for his view on this. McMurdo Base is the main US
>supply base for most US operations in Antartica. The New Zealand base is
>"just around the corner, within walking distance". Most vehicles down there
>run on diesel fuel but they would have some gasoline for Ski Doo type
>vehicles. The main runway is built on sea ice and it will breakup within a
>month. In January icebreakers will carve a path to McMurdo for supply ships
>to get in but those ships are already loaded and on their way. Cruise ships
>visit the area during the brief summer. My brother was surprised the they
>made him sleep in the fuel shed. Even in the summer McMurdo has lots of
>barracks space.
>
>Shipping to Antrartica is very expensive. If he has to hire a Twin Otter to
>fly in fuel, he might find it's cheaper to abandon the airplane there. My
>brother thinks they're playing hardball just to keep others away.
>
>Rich
>

While I personally wouldn't fly a single engine airplane any great
distance over water I admire those who have the courage to do so.

So what is wrong with giving the guy the 80 gallons of gas and he buys
two 200 liter drums of gas in Christchurch and they fly them down in
the next C130 that has a little space available? Charge him for the
airfreight.

Don't tell me *every* C130 is at max gross or bulked out out of
Christchurch?

I think this is a good argument for abandoning the Antarctic bases.
After 50 years surely the human presence can be replaced by a few
automatic weather stations and satellite surveillance and we Aussies,
Kiwis and Americans get to save some taxes?

I think I'll write to my Member of Parliament urging the zeroing of
Antarctic funding. The damn place is of no economic benefit by
international agreement. Just a playground for a bunch of scientists
who probably don't want anyone else getting in on their sweet little
racket. Just like the NASA people. What we have had in both the
Antarctic and space is tourism with high entry barriers and
qualifications for the tourists.

Second Last thought - I wonder if he's sleeping in the fuel shed with
the right fuel in it?

Last thought - I hope I someday get the chance to refuse to help one
of these bureaucrats when he's in trouble and needs my assistance.

Mike Borgelt

[Andrew Rowley]

"Jimmy Galvin" > wrote:

>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.

Many people would say that applied to all pilots of light aircraft,
especially those who build their own. I know a lot of people think I'm
crazy...

[Bart D. Hull]

I agree with Jimmy,

Sell him the gas at what it costs to get it there and don't support all the
fools in the world.

In Arizona we had all sorts of fools that would try to cross washes (normally
dry creek beds) right after a rainstorm. Dozens of people would get stuck
because they were too lazy to go around and find a bridge. Now the people
that get stuck are billed for the cost of whatever was necessary to get them
to safety and the tow bill on the car when the wash subsided.

Not too many people think it's WORTH IT now.

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.


Jimmy Galvin wrote:

> 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.
> "Cam" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On behalf of all normal Kiwi's . I appologise for our sick burocratic
>>politcaly correct government *******s (Bitches)
>>Cam..........
>>
>>
>>
>>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
>>>RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
>>>getting out of Antartica....
>>>
>>>
>>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/2003
>
>>1210/od_nm/adventurer_dc
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Russell Kent]

Mike Borgelt wrote:

> Last thought - I hope I someday get the chance to refuse to help one
> of these bureaucrats when he's in trouble and needs my assistance.

These days you never know who may be a bureaucrat or future bureaucrat.
Therefore, I refuse to help anyone in need of assistance. I would imagine that
puts me in the same company as BOb again. ;-)

Russell Kent

[BlakeleyTB]

Jon speaks english...and isn't it the agenda of the U.S. to give the taxpayers
moneys to only non english speaking counties....that hate us???

And feeding Jon or giving 80 gallons of fuel to him would not give anyone near
the benefit as sending mice into space to see if thay copulate or if house flys
can fly in zero gravity or even having a "base" in the Antartic...( what is
the benefit??? )

[Rich S.]

"BlakeleyTB" > wrote in message
...
> Jon speaks english...and isn't it the agenda of the U.S. to give the
taxpayers
> moneys to only non english speaking counties....that hate us???
>
> And feeding Jon or giving 80 gallons of fuel to him would not give anyone
near
> the benefit as sending mice into space to see if thay copulate or if house
flys
> can fly in zero gravity or even having a "base" in the Antartic...( what
is
> the benefit??? )

If he gets 80 gallons and a cheeseburger, I want mine too!

Rich "Taxes?" S

[Rich S.]

I remember flying over Los Angeles 30 years ago in my Ercoupe. I had flown
non-stop from San Francisco and was dreadfully low on fuel. I was also lost
in the smog. I could see the ground under me but everything around me was an
even brown-grey color. Finally, I spotted Disneyland! Yahoo!! Now to get to
Orange County. I set a compass heading and noted the time and speed.

After a few minutes the engine seemed to burp. Was this it? were the tanks
finally dry? Ahead of me, barely visible through the haze was El Toro Marine
Air Station. I called the tower and asked if I could land, describing my
plight. They said, "Sure, lil' guy, c'mon down. Of course, you'll have to
take that Ercoupe apart and truck it out. . . "

I went on to find Orange County (John Wayne to you kids). I told the tower I
was critical on fuel and they said, "Roger, you're number 17 on downwind."
Well, I made it to the ramp and actually had enough fuel that I needed to
kill the mags to stop that faithful little Continental. When the fuel truck
got done, I did the math. I had less than a gallon on board.

I hope Johanson brought his socket set with him.

Rich "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" S.

[Ron Natalie]

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

>
> I went on to find Orange County (John Wayne to you kids)

Still Santa Ana to me.

[Rich S.]

"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.

Rich S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

[Responding to two postings....]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:37:38 -0800, "Richard Isakson" >
wrote:

>My brother over-wintered at Siple Station in Antartica about thirty years
>ago. I called him today for his view on this. McMurdo Base is the main US
>supply base for most US operations in Antartica. The New Zealand base is
>"just around the corner, within walking distance". Most vehicles down there
>run on diesel fuel but they would have some gasoline for Ski Doo type
>vehicles.

The next question is, does the gasoline for the snow machines have alcohol
in it? Back when I was driving my '46 Willys in North Dakota, the engine
always ran very rough whenever the temperature went below zero. A can of
de-icer into the tank always cleared it up.

I don't know what model of Lycoming Johanson is running, but it's quite
possible he needs 100 octane, and almost a certainty that he needs fuel
*without* alcohol. May not have large stocks of that at McMurdo.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:07:35 -0800, "Rich S." >
wrote:

]"BllFs6" > wrote:
]] While 80 gallons or so of fuel may not be much...we must ask a few
]] things....
]
]<snip>
]
]That must have been SOME headwind to burn an extra 80 gallons. . .

Ah, but *that's* where the meteobureaupolitical environment in Antarctica
comes to play. Here's a quote from an ex-Navy Antarctic C-130 pilot:

"At various times during the season one particular forecaster seemed to
have it out for the crews. He was in the unique position not only of
forecasting the weather but, as the NSF Duty Officer, of being responsible
for ensuring that all the missions scheduled on his watch went out on time.
So it was always suspect when--on his duty days, no matter what the actual
weather was-- all our forecasts were always exactly the weather minimums."
Page 68, _Flying Upside Down_, by Mark Hinebaugh

Johanson may have relied on a forecast that had been put together to
*enable* flight, not to warn pilots of actual conditions.

Ron Wanttaja

[Rich S.]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ah, but *that's* where the meteobureaupolitical environment in Antarctica
> comes to play. Here's a quote from an ex-Navy Antarctic C-130 pilot:
>
> "At various times during the season one particular forecaster seemed to
> have it out for the crews. He was in the unique position not only of
> forecasting the weather but, as the NSF Duty Officer, of being responsible
> for ensuring that all the missions scheduled on his watch went out on
time.
> So it was always suspect when--on his duty days, no matter what the actual
> weather was-- all our forecasts were always exactly the weather minimums."
> Page 68, _Flying Upside Down_, by Mark Hinebaugh
>
> Johanson may have relied on a forecast that had been put together to
> *enable* flight, not to warn pilots of actual conditions.

I have *always* found that forecasts were professional, objective, and
clear. And always followed by the caveat, "VFR flight not recommended in
Western Washington".

Rich S.

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:37:38 -0800 "Richard Isakson" > wrote:

> My brother over-wintered at Siple Station in Antartica about thirty years
> ago. I called him today for his view on this. McMurdo Base is the main US
> supply base for most US operations in Antartica. The New Zealand base is
> "just around the corner, within walking distance". Most vehicles down there
> run on diesel fuel but they would have some gasoline for Ski Doo type
> vehicles. The main runway is built on sea ice and it will breakup within a
> month. In January icebreakers will carve a path to McMurdo for supply ships
> to get in but those ships are already loaded and on their way. Cruise ships
> visit the area during the brief summer. My brother was surprised the they
> made him sleep in the fuel shed. Even in the summer McMurdo has lots of

In the fuel shed? Nudge-nudge, *wink-wink*. Is he under constant
surveillance?

Sounds like really poor planning. Ever see the movie "Deer Hunter"?


R. Hubbell

[Richard Isakson]

"Mike Borgelt" wrote ...
> I think this is a good argument for abandoning the Antarctic bases.
> After 50 years surely the human presence can be replaced by a few
> automatic weather stations and satellite surveillance and we Aussies,
> Kiwis and Americans get to save some taxes?
>
> I think I'll write to my Member of Parliament urging the zeroing of
> Antarctic funding. The damn place is of no economic benefit by
> international agreement. Just a playground for a bunch of scientists
> who probably don't want anyone else getting in on their sweet little
> racket. Just like the NASA people. What we have had in both the
> Antarctic and space is tourism with high entry barriers and
> qualifications for the tourists.

Antartica is diplomatically sensitive for America. By international treaty
its considered an free and open continent. Without borders. For the free
use of all ... (for the most part run by and for America.) From time to
time the treaty comes up for renewal and if one member withdraws the
continent reverts to its origonal state. Lands areas claimed by several
countries. Ill defined borders and large areas claimed by more than one
state. America has no legal land claims in Antartica. Add to this the
story that certain areas have large regions where a black oily substance
oozes from the rocks and you have a recipe for chaos. And America can't
claim ANY of it.

Rich

[R. Hubbell]

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

>
> Rich S.
>
>

[RR Urban]

>Mike Borgelt wrote:
>
>> Last thought - I hope I someday get the chance to refuse to help one
>> of these bureaucrats when he's in trouble and needs my assistance.
>
>These days you never know who may be a bureaucrat or future bureaucrat.
>Therefore, I refuse to help anyone in need of assistance. I would imagine that
>puts me in the same company as BOb again. ;-)
>
>Russell Kent
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Poor me.
Constantly catching cacophonous crap.


All you Johanson bleeding hearts and Pollyannas, check this....

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031212_101.html



Barnyard BOb - bah humbug

[Russell Kent]

RR Urban wrote:

> Poor me.
> Constantly catching cacophonous crap.

If you didn't make such a rewarding target, you'd probably catch less. :-)

> All you Johanson bleeding hearts and Pollyannas, check this....
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031212_101.html

Either ABC News is mis-reporting (wow, what a shock... NOT.), or Lou Sanson ("chief
of Antarctica New Zealand, a government-funded research outfit") is mis-informed.
He is quoted as saying Johanson's trip was "ill-prepared and secret". The former is
arguable, the latter is flat-out false.

Russell Kent

[Felger Carbon]

"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.

[Rich Ahrens]

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.

Yeah, that was practically on final into SNA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Blueskies]

Pollyanna = fuel from Polly?

--
Dan D.



..
"RR Urban" > wrote in message ...
>
> >Mike Borgelt wrote:
> >
<snip>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Poor me.
> Constantly catching cacophonous crap.
>
>
> All you Johanson bleeding hearts and Pollyannas, check this....
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031212_101.html
>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - bah humbug

[Richard Riley]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:17:28 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

:
:"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
:
:>
:> I went on to find Orange County (John Wayne to you kids)
:
:Still Santa Ana to me.

You talking about Eddie Martin Airport?

[Robert Bonomi]

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".

[ET]

(Robert Bonomi) wrote in
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".
>
>
>

If that farmer had fuel to sell, yeah! I would. I'm not saying they
have too, I'm just saying they are being first class d$cks by not doing
it.

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Roger Halstead]

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

>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.

Yup, what ever happened to compassion and the exploratory spirit.?

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

Right now we could use all the PR we can get and this would have been
a good way to pick up some.

Even back when the RUSSIANS were supposed to be the bad guys they gave
some one else fuel when we refused.

Looks like the NSA could stand a bit of tutoring in the humanistic
side of things.

So far even the state department is after them "as I understand".
but they haven't budged. So to me the whole operation down there is an
embarrassment to us.

>
>*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?
>
No, but most will out of something called compassion.
There is a big difference between being obligated and being obstinate.

>What, if *anything*, is different about the two scenarios?

Obligation versus compassionate, versus obstinate.
>
>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".
>

Doesn't really matter. Had the weather gone as forecast he'd not have
needed any. It's not really a matter of being required, but rather
one of being of help.

There seem to be a lot of unforgiving people who could use a bit of
compassion when some one else screws up.

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

[Andrew Rowley]

(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

[Andrew Rowley]

Roger Halstead > wrote:

>Doesn't really matter. Had the weather gone as forecast he'd not have
>needed any. It's not really a matter of being required, but rather
>one of being of help.
>
>There seem to be a lot of unforgiving people who could use a bit of
>compassion when some one else screws up.

The latest reports suggest they are now refusing to provide weather
forecasts. The policy down there seems to be that they won't let you
die, but that's about all you can expect. I have read that they
refused use of their phone, and I also heard that they would not allow
him to charge his own phone. There was an article about the policy in
todays newspaper:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/13/1071125711709.html

[Jimmy Galvin]

You can not possibly believe that there was "exploratory spirit" involved
here. He was not blazing new frontiers. It was simply a publicity stunt that
was only meant as a means of self promotion. Not one person on this planet
would have benefited other than himself had he pulled it off. He screwed up
by not being prepared and it is up to him to bail himself out.
"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:26:37 +0000,
> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Yup, what ever happened to compassion and the exploratory spirit.?
>

[plumb bob]

Relax. H?a
"Jimmy Galvin" > wrote in message
...
> You can not possibly believe that there was "exploratory spirit" involved
> here. He was not blazing new frontiers. It was simply a publicity stunt
that
> was only meant as a means of self promotion. Not one person on this planet
> would have benefited other than himself had he pulled it off. He screwed
up
> by not being prepared and it is up to him to bail himself out.
> "Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:26:37 +0000,
> > (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Yup, what ever happened to compassion and the exploratory spirit.?
> >
>
>
>

[Vaughn]

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> 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

I doubt that they would even accept the shipment, so the question is
academic. In dealing with bureaucracy, sometimes it is better to ask
forgiveness than to ask for permission that will surely be refused. That is
obviously the tack that Johanson chose, and probably the only reasonable
choice if one insists on making the attempt. Unfortunately for him, the
bureaucracy has chosen to play hardball in this instance.

Vaughn
>

[Stealth Pilot]

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?

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

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.

**** happens occasionally. lets hope that when it happens to you there
are compasionate humans around to help you.
from experience I can tell you that breaking an aeroplane 1,500 miles
from home can make you the lonliest guy on the planet. you can make a
lot of good friends in times like those. ....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

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:02:10 -0500, "Jimmy Galvin"
> wrote:

>You can not possibly believe that there was "exploratory spirit" involved
>here. He was not blazing new frontiers.

As it would have been a record setting flight, yes he would have been
setting new frontiers. The man has flown around the world twice now,
if for nothing more than self satisfaction, then so be it.

>It was simply a publicity stunt that

People climb Mt Everest just for the accomplishment. There is nothing
wrong with that.

>was only meant as a means of self promotion. Not one person on this planet
>would have benefited other than himself had he pulled it off. He screwed up
>by not being prepared and it is up to him to bail himself out.

Many, many times people end up in similar situations here in the
states, but some one comes to the rescue. No, they aren't record
setting flights, but high winds have forced landings at airports where
services were not to be found.

Suddenly finding your self in "unforecast" bad weather and having to
land at an airport with nothing more than a telephone and no heat in
the very small terminal building that is no more than a shed leaves a
pilot feeling overwhelmed. Been there and done that. Called FSS who
still thought the weather was as forecast.

Landing on an icy runway at an unattended airport far from home only
to have the nose wheel break... Happened to one of our members...
Fortunately their cell phone worked and they had a directory of
members in that area. They were stuck for a couple of days. One of
the guys out there took the nose wheel off his LongEZ so they could
get out. No one was obligated, but offering a part of your own
airplane goes a bit beyond offering gas.

Fortunately most pilots and most people have more compassion than the
NSF although there are a few narrow minded ones who can't understand
how any one could get into trouble paying attention. It doesn't
matter how well you plan, **** happens.

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


>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:26:37 +0000,
>> (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Yup, what ever happened to compassion and the exploratory spirit.?
>>
>
>

[Jerry Springer]

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.

Sounds like your idea of a good time is to sit on your fat ass and
do nothing. People with attitudes like yours are worthless. I hope
next time you need help you tell the people that come to help you
that you do not want their help because through your own stupidity
your ass is so fat you cannot fit through the door to go out into life
and enjoy it.

[Jerry Springer]

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:02:10 -0500, "Jimmy Galvin"
> > wrote:
>
>


>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.

Sounds like your idea of a good time is to sit on your fat ass and
do nothing. People with attitudes like yours are worthless. I hope
next time you need help you tell the people that come to help you
that you do not want their help because through your own stupidity
your ass is so fat you cannot fit through the door to go out into life
and enjoy it.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Jimmy Galvin" > wrote:

> You can not possibly believe that there was "exploratory spirit" involved
> here. He was not blazing new frontiers. It was simply a publicity stunt that
> was only meant as a means of self promotion. Not one person on this planet
> would have benefited other than himself had he pulled it off. He screwed up
> by not being prepared and it is up to him to bail himself out.



Oh, give us a break, Jimmy!

The bureaucrats at McMurdo are simply being jerks of the first order!
How many people on this planet benefit from such obstinate behavior?
They should allow him to get 80 gallons of fuel, get his weather reports
and get going! How difficult is that to do?

I am getting sick and tired of Jimmy's sanctimonious acting as an
apologist for NSA -- they are proving to be nothing but a bunch of
useless bureaucrats, with no compassion or sense of real-world existence.

[Cy Galley]

>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

Editor, EAA Safety Programs
or

Always looking for articles for the Experimenter

[Jerry Springer]

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
>
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> or
>
> Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
>
>
Good one Cy, I like that thinking. :-)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:15:59 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,

>I am getting sick and tired of Jimmy's sanctimonious acting as an
>apologist for NSA -- they are proving to be nothing but a bunch of
>useless bureaucrats, with no compassion or sense of real-world existence.

I *think* you mean "NSF", the National Science Foundation that is the US's
interest in Antarctica. The "NSA" is another kettle of fish entirely....

NSF: http://www.nsf.gov
NSA: http://www.nsa.gov

BTW, I happened to read further on that book by the ex-Navy C-130 pilot:
The gasoline shipped to the Antarctic for the snow machines *does* have
anti-freezing additives. However, since Johanson may have built his fuel
system to handle alcohol, since he was planning on buying fuel all around
the world.

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Isakson]

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote ...
> BTW, I happened to read further on that book by the ex-Navy C-130 pilot:
> The gasoline shipped to the Antarctic for the snow machines *does* have
> anti-freezing additives. However, since Johanson may have built his fuel
> system to handle alcohol, since he was planning on buying fuel all around
> the world.

Ron,

As base commander, do you sell him snowmobile gas for the return trip? He
wants it and the plane may (or may not) be legal to use it under certain
circumstances , but don't you have to accept legal liability for selling him
non-aviation fuel? Particularly on a trip that's entirely over water in
very cold conditions. If Johanson didn't make it home wouldn't there be
entire legions of lawyers waiting to sue the US Government for supplying him
the wrong type of fuel? Or would it be better to say "There's a supply ship
here in a month. Ship the plane home that way."

How much research has been done in using autogas in airplanes in antartic
conditions?

Rich

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> 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

[Ron Wanttaja]

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

[Roger Halstead]

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

[Richard Riley]

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.

[Robert Bonomi]

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.

[Forrest]

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".
>
>

[Jerry Springer]

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".
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Robert Bonomi]

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.

[Forrest]

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

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> 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".
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

[Forrest]

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
> ink.net...
> > 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".
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Cy Galley]

Boy, You are in luck as we never charge and fix most everything that no one
plans for. But we only work for pleasant people, people who become our
"plane" friends.
--
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh for 32 years
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
or

Always looking for articles for the Experimenter



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

[Rich S.]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually he was over the Oscoda Air Base here in Michigan which is why
> he was so low on fuel.

ROFLMAO!

Rich S.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"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.
>

A better idea is to contact our Congressmen and send NSF a message! They
are WAY out of line here and need to be reigned in, just like a lot of
other governmental organizations.

[Forrest]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "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.
> >
>
> A better idea is to contact our Congressmen and send NSF a message! They
> are WAY out of line here and need to be reigned in, just like a lot of
> other governmental organizations.


Like I said. Five bucks.

Forrest

[Forrest]

"Forrest" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>
...
> > In article >,
> > "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.
> > >
> >
> > A better idea is to contact our Congressmen and send NSF a message! They
> > are WAY out of line here and need to be reigned in, just like a lot of
> > other governmental organizations.
>
>
> Like I said. Five bucks.
>
> Forrest
>
>
Write congress and leave the guy out there freezing his ass off while we
wait?! PROVE that there is a LEGITIMATE fund in place and, hell, I'll make
it TEN bucks. Any takers or movers and shakers out there?

Forrest

[Jerry Springer]

Ah Forrest he is already on his way, by this time is probably already at his
next destination.

Forrest wrote:
> "Forrest" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>>
>
> ...
>
>>>In article >,
>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>A better idea is to contact our Congressmen and send NSF a message! They
>>>are WAY out of line here and need to be reigned in, just like a lot of
>>>other governmental organizations.
>>
>>
>>Like I said. Five bucks.
>>
>>Forrest
>>
>>
>
> Write congress and leave the guy out there freezing his ass off while we
> wait?! PROVE that there is a LEGITIMATE fund in place and, hell, I'll make
> it TEN bucks. Any takers or movers and shakers out there?
>
> Forrest
>
>

[Jimmy Galvin]

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
ink.net...
> 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".
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

[Jimmy Galvin]

Excellent idea. Like Congress has nothing better to do.
"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
.
...
> In article >,
> "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.
> >
>
> A better idea is to contact our Congressmen and send NSF a message! They
> are WAY out of line here and need to be reigned in, just like a lot of
> other governmental organizations.

[Eric Miller]

"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

[Forrest]

Yeah. Right. You really got me that time. Twenty bucks.


"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Ah Forrest he is already on his way, by this time is probably already at
his
> next destination.
>
> Forrest wrote:
> > "Forrest" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
message
> >>
> >
> >
...
> >
> >>>In article >,
> >>> "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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>A better idea is to contact our Congressmen and send NSF a message!
They
> >>>are WAY out of line here and need to be reigned in, just like a lot of
> >>>other governmental organizations.
> >>
> >>
> >>Like I said. Five bucks.
> >>
> >>Forrest
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Write congress and leave the guy out there freezing his ass off while we
> > wait?! PROVE that there is a LEGITIMATE fund in place and, hell, I'll
make
> > it TEN bucks. Any takers or movers and shakers out there?
> >
> > Forrest
> >
> >
>

[Forrest]

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
> ink.net...
> > 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".
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Forrest]

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
>
>

[Stealth Pilot]

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

[Stealth 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

[RR Urban]

>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.

[nafod40]

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.

[Mark Hickey]

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

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> 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

[nafod40]

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

[RR Urban]

>> 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?

[Russell Kent]

Robert Bonomi wrote:

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

Neither is the NSF. Do you not remember the woman diagnosed with breast cancer
last year? The NSF was unable to help her. The US Air Force had to bail her ass
out, first by dropping special meds to her, and later by flying a special air
evac mission. So since the NSF isn't "self sufficient", your argument doesn't
hold up.

The NSF may well believe that denying essential assistance (like use of a phone)
in Jon's case on the belief that it will discourage irrational thrill seekers.
The NSF is wrong. Thrill seekers are irrational, therefore the NSF's passive
dissuasion will not work. All that they have done is stir up a row among the
Aussies and us, and given themselves a blackeye.

Russell Kent

[Big John]

Have a solution to the dumb *******s problem.

NZ is in the Coalition (they have 50 or so engineers rebuilding - not
in combat organizations).

In the joy running around the States and World with capture of SH it
would be an excellent time to pay NZ back for their (unpopular beating
around the world for being a member of the Coalition) support and have
them ask for something in return. Who know? Stranger things have
happened if GVT of NZ gets in the act.

Big John

My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
flight.

I can see his book now on how he worked the system.


On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:38:05 GMT, John Ammeter
> wrote:

>Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
>RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
>getting out of Antartica....
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/20031210/od_nm/adventurer_dc

[Jerry Springer]

Big John wrote:
> Have a solution to the dumb *******s problem.
>
> NZ is in the Coalition (they have 50 or so engineers rebuilding - not
> in combat organizations).
>
> In the joy running around the States and World with capture of SH it
> would be an excellent time to pay NZ back for their (unpopular beating
> around the world for being a member of the Coalition) support and have
> them ask for something in return. Who know? Stranger things have
> happened if GVT of NZ gets in the act.
>
> Big John
>
> My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
> PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
> flight.
>
> I can see his book now on how he worked the system.
>
Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about.

[Larry Smith]

"Little Bitty Big John" > hurled in message
...
> Have a solution to the dumb *******s problem.
> [..]> My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
> PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
> flight.
>
> I can see his book now on how he worked the system.

Hey, you cantankerous old weasel, call FAA and revoke his ticket.

[NigelPocock]

Why dosnt he contact Britsh Antarctic Survey? I suspect they are likely to be
more sypathetic if only to get rid of him.

[Blueskies]

He's flown out by now

--
Dan D.



..
"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
>
> > >
> > > My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
> > > PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
> > > flight.
> > >
> > > I can see his book now on how he worked the system.
> > >
> > Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about
> ########################
>
> Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
> to have an opinion?
>
> John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
> been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
> and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
> can leave.
>
> Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!
>
> Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
> and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
> insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.
>
> Have a nice day!
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Morgans]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote

> >
> > My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
> > PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
> > flight.
> >
> > I can see his book now on how he worked the system.
> >
> Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about
########################

Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
to have an opinion?

John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
can leave.

Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!

Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.

Have a nice day!
--
Jim in NC

[Jerry Springer]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
>
>
>>>My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
>>>PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
>>>flight.
>>>
>>>I can see his book now on how he worked the system.
>>>
>>
>>Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about
>
> ########################
>
> Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
> to have an opinion?
>
> John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
> been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
> and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
> can leave.
>
> Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!
>
> Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
> and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
> insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.
>
> Have a nice day!
Jim if any of you had a clue you would have known he left a couple days ago.

[Big John]

Been a small flame and here is some fuel for a big flame.

A lot of people posting need to research the Treaties, rules and
regulations for any type operations in Antarctica. Also if one reads
old and current history there are multitudes of stories about the Wx
changes within 10-15 minutes with very high winds coming up and zero
visibility lasting for days. Wx forecasting down there is more of an
art than a science. With any sense you don't fly into that area
without lots of backup and alternate options. Particularly in a GA
bird.


He may well have gotten one of their conditional (warranty good until
you walk out the door) Wx checks and the wind came up and he was in
deep S***. The wind problem down there is well known and not making
options for it is ...............................(Responsible pilots
add your own words)

Not making alternate options I (and many) feel he just plain screwed
up and his notoriety in the Amateur built world (and Talking Heads
on TV) not withstanding, he has a hell of a problem that I doubt 'poor
boying' to the TV audience will work out for him.

So, go read the rules and history and then come back and argue with
the facts.

Why didn't he have the NZ government use there operations and contacts
down there to run interference for him and set up alternate emergency
landing authority and access to a limited amount of fuel? Might have
taken several years but those things are doable and are the
RESPONSIBLE thing to do.

Tough titty kitty (as they say).

Big John

Go ahead and fan the flame, (the 90 gallons are on the fire). I doubt
if I will add any more facts and figures to the thread but sit back
and keep my cold feet and hands warm.

Also:

AU supports us in Iraq. In the joy of SH , and AU in the 'Coalition'
someone may feel helping the poor crying ******* would be another
brownie point for the US??? Who knows. If they were on our side, now
is the time to strike for help.

I would expect a NOTAM to be put out that any fuel provided from their
limited stocks to be billed at $5000 a US gallon cash in advance (like
they do at the Panama Canal (No cash, no transit).

If he is going to write a book then get an advance $100K and have
someone fly a bird in with two drums of fuel and get on his way. He
needs to grab his socks and pull up and quit crying.

Have at it troops.

Big John



John Ammeter > wrote:

>Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
>RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
>getting out of Antartica....
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/20031210/od_nm/adventurer_dc

[Big John]

OOps

Big John

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:40:49 -0600, Big John >
wrote: *****************REWRITE TO CORECT ERRORS*****************

Have a solution to the dumb *******s problem.

Wrote this just out of Hospital and full of whatever they pump into
you.

AU has authorized up to 2000 military troops to particapate in the
Coalition) .

In the joy running around the States and World with capture of SH it
would be an excellent time to pay AU back for their (unpopular beating
around the world for being a member of the Coalition) support and have
them ask for something in return. Who know? Stranger things have
happened if GVT of AU gets in the act.

Big John

My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
flight).

I can see his book now on how he worked the system.



>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:38:05 GMT, John Ammeter
> wrote:
>
>>Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
>>RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
>>getting out of Antartica....
>>
>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/20031210/od_nm/adventurer_dc

[Big John]

See my corrected posting with correct background.

Big John

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:40:49 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>Have a solution to the dumb *******s problem.
>
>NZ is in the Coalition (they have 50 or so engineers rebuilding - not
>in combat organizations).
>
>In the joy running around the States and World with capture of SH it
>would be an excellent time to pay NZ back for their (unpopular beating
>around the world for being a member of the Coalition) support and have
>them ask for something in return. Who know? Stranger things have
>happened if GVT of NZ gets in the act.
>
>Big John
>
>My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
>PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
>flight.
>
>I can see his book now on how he worked the system.
>
>
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:38:05 GMT, John Ammeter
> wrote:
>
>>Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
>>RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
>>getting out of Antartica....
>>
>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/20031210/od_nm/adventurer_dc

[Big John]

Jerry

Since you had the CLUE why didn't you post two days ago?

No matter, the end of the story he pulled a dumb assed stunt.

When I was Current Ops for USAFSO, we had some support activities to
the operation down there so I am talking from more than just my
opinions as was stated prior.

Big John


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:49:06 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>
>
>Morgans wrote:
>> "Jerry Springer" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>>My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
>>>>PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
>>>>flight.
>>>>
>>>>I can see his book now on how he worked the system.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about
>>
>> ########################
>>
>> Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
>> to have an opinion?
>>
>> John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
>> been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
>> and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
>> can leave.
>>
>> Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!
>>
>> Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
>> and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
>> insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.
>>
>> Have a nice day!
>Jim if any of you had a clue you would have known he left a couple days ago.

[Jerry Springer]

Duh, I did on 12/15

Jerry

Big John wrote:

> Jerry
>
> Since you had the CLUE why didn't you post two days ago?
>
> No matter, the end of the story he pulled a dumb assed stunt.
>
> When I was Current Ops for USAFSO, we had some support activities to
> the operation down there so I am talking from more than just my
> opinions as was stated prior.
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:49:06 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Morgans wrote:
>>
>>>"Jerry Springer" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
>>>>>PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
>>>>>flight.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can see his book now on how he worked the system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about
>>>
>>>########################
>>>
>>>Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
>>>to have an opinion?
>>>
>>>John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
>>>been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
>>>and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
>>>can leave.
>>>
>>>Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!
>>>
>>>Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
>>>and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
>>>insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.
>>>
>>>Have a nice day!
>>
>>Jim if any of you had a clue you would have known he left a couple days ago.
>
>

[Big John]

Jerry

Checked this thread back to 12/12 and no posting by you that all was
solved and he was gone on his way.

Are you sure you wrote and hit your send key?

Big John


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:11:19 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>Duh, I did on 12/15
>
>Jerry
>
>Big John wrote:
>
>> Jerry
>>
>> Since you had the CLUE why didn't you post two days ago?
>>
>> No matter, the end of the story he pulled a dumb assed stunt.
>>
>> When I was Current Ops for USAFSO, we had some support activities to
>> the operation down there so I am talking from more than just my
>> opinions as was stated prior.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:49:06 GMT, Jerry Springer
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Morgans wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jerry Springer" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
>>>>>>PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
>>>>>>flight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can see his book now on how he worked the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about
>>>>
>>>>########################
>>>>
>>>>Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
>>>>to have an opinion?
>>>>
>>>>John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
>>>>been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
>>>>and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
>>>>can leave.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!
>>>>
>>>>Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
>>>>and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
>>>>insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.
>>>>
>>>>Have a nice day!
>>>
>>>Jim if any of you had a clue you would have known he left a couple days ago.
>>
>>

[RR Urban]

>Jerry
>
>Checked this thread back to 12/12 and no posting by you that all was
>solved and he was gone on his way.
>
>Are you sure you wrote and hit your send key?
>
>Big John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have this to offer in Jerry's behalf.....

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:53:19 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>Ah Forrest he is already on his way, by this time is probably already at his
>next destination.


Barnyard BOb --

[Jerry Springer]

Big John wrote:
> Jerry
>
> Checked this thread back to 12/12 and no posting by you that all was
> solved and he was gone on his way.
>
> Are you sure you wrote and hit your send key?
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:11:19 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Duh, I did on 12/15
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>Big John wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jerry
>>>
>>>Since you had the CLUE why didn't you post two days ago?
>>>
>>>No matter, the end of the story he pulled a dumb assed stunt.

******************
Sorry posted the following on "12/14" not 12/15

Jerry

Ah Forrest he is already on his way, by this time is probably already at his
next destination.

Forrest wrote:

> "Forrest" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>>
>
> ...
>
>>> In article >,
>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A better idea is to contact our Congressmen and send NSF a message! They
>>> are WAY out of line here and need to be reigned in, just like a lot of
>>> other governmental organizations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I said. Five bucks.
>>
>> Forrest
>>
>>
>
> Write congress and leave the guy out there freezing his ass off while we
> wait?! PROVE that there is a LEGITIMATE fund in place and, hell, I'll make
> it TEN bucks. Any takers or movers and shakers out there?
>
> Forrest
>
>

[nafod40]

Big John wrote:
> Been a small flame and here is some fuel for a big flame.
>
> A lot of people posting need to research the Treaties, rules and
> regulations for any type operations in Antarctica. Also if one reads
> old and current history there are multitudes of stories about the Wx
> changes within 10-15 minutes with very high winds coming up and zero
> visibility lasting for days. Wx forecasting down there is more of an
> art than a science. With any sense you don't fly into that area
> without lots of backup and alternate options. Particularly in a GA
> bird.

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

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:11:20 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

I look at it this way, due to my "upbringing", to not help is .. well,
un-american regardless of rules and regulations, or the reason for the
need in the first place. OTOH, there is absolutely nothing wrong with
charging an arm and a leg so save some ones ass.

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

[Big John]

To give closure.

OBE as one of my old bosses used to say.

Big John


On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:38:05 GMT, John Ammeter
> wrote:

>Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
>RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
>getting out of Antartica....
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=10&u=/nm/20031210/od_nm/adventurer_dc

[Robert Bonomi]

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.

[RR Urban]

(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

[pacplyer]

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

[Robert Bonomi]

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'.

[Robert Bonomi]

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.

[Eric Miller]

"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

[BWB]

>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 there: _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

[Robert Bonomi]

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?

[andy asberry]

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.

[StellaStar]

>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/

[Morgans]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> To give closure.
>
> OBE as one of my old bosses used to say.
>
> Big John

???

[Del Rawlins]

On 17 Dec 2003 03:18 PM, RR Urban posted the following:
>
> (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.

Both are right. He took off without covering all the angles, and the
NSF are a bunch of assholes, plain and simple. All's well that ends
well, I guess.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Larry Smith]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> nafod40 > wrote
>


Packie, the operative words are "arctic" and "antarctic." Can't I learn
you nothin?

So far, not a soul has spelled these words correctly.

[Larry Smith]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > To give closure.
> >
> > OBE as one of my old bosses used to say.
> >
> > Big John
>
> ???

Who GAS?

[nafod40]

Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>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?

Yes. They can ship down a new batch in the next plane, the next day.

I think they should have left him alone in the fuel shed with a 10
gallon for a few hours while they ate a long lunch. But that's me.

[Snowbird]

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)

[RR Urban]

>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/


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

>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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sydney dear,

You and Stella have every right to be super
proud of women aviators, especially in the
wake of this Jon Johanson fiasco.

Too many times, including now...
You gals get the short end of the stick.

May I apologize for the chauvinistic
behavior that might be attributed to me
or my chauvinistic buddies.

Kudos to Polly...
for saving a dumb ass and GA
from further embarassment.


Barnyard BOb --

[Corky Scott]

On 18 Dec 2003 07:22:23 GMT, Del Rawlins
> wrote:

>On 17 Dec 2003 03:18 PM, RR Urban posted the following:
>>
>> (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.
>
>Both are right. He took off without covering all the angles, and the
>NSF are a bunch of assholes, plain and simple. All's well that ends
>well, I guess.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Del Rawlins-
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/


Plus, I'm not sure everyone understands just how difficult it is to
plan for global flights. Jon's is using an RV-4. In many countries,
stating what type airplane this is doesn't compute. It causes
enormous bureaucratic hassles whenever he touches down in a foreign
country because they don't know how to classify the airplane. His
trips literally can take years to plan, and then his clearance to
overfly a country's airspace may be canceled at a whim. And that's
without taking the weather into consideration.

His biggest problem during his flights isn't the weather, it's the
bureaucracy of the countries upon which he must rely when he lands.
When he was returning to Australia for the first trip, he landed in
India and almost didn't get out of there. He hadn't done anything
wrong, other than land there, it's just that India has taken
bureaucracy to stratospheric levels. It's probably what they do best.
And this was WITH clearance ahead of time.

Corky Scott

[John Ousterhout]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:23:19 -0600, RR Urban > wrote:

>Sydney dear,
>
>You and Stella have every right to be super
>proud of women aviators, especially in the
>wake of this Jon Johanson fiasco.
>
>Too many times, including now...
>You gals get the short end of the stick.
>
>May I apologize for the chauvinistic
>behavior that might be attributed to me
>or my chauvinistic buddies.
>
>Kudos to Polly...
>for saving a dumb ass and GA
>from further embarassment.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

Who are you?

and what have you done with Bob?

- J.O.-

[TJ]

Stealth Pilot > wrote:

>you really are a typical yank.

And you are a typical Aussie. Of the two, I much prefer Yanks.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(StellaStar) wrote:

> >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/

Hats off to the 99s! The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate to the NSF! As
an American, I am embarrassed thet the NSF showed such callousness and
bureaucratic intransigence (worthy of the French) in this situation.

I suggest that we transfer ownership of the entire NSF to France.

[Model Flyer]

"RR Urban" > wrote in message
...
>
> >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.
>

Because shes one of them wimon yokes, not a foolish man child who
didn't plan his fuel properly. While I may give out about his not
sending fuel ahead to ensure his safe return, I would have gone to a
lot of troubble getting somemore.:-)
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)



> http://www.worldwings.org/
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2003 05:50:36 -0800, (Snowbird)
> wrote:
>
> >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)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Sydney dear,
>
> You and Stella have every right to be super
> proud of women aviators, especially in the
> wake of this Jon Johanson fiasco.
>
> Too many times, including now...
> You gals get the short end of the stick.
>
> May I apologize for the chauvinistic
> behavior that might be attributed to me
> or my chauvinistic buddies.
>
> Kudos to Polly...
> for saving a dumb ass and GA
> from further embarassment.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>
>
>

[pacplyer]

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message >...
> "pacplyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > nafod40 > wrote
> >
>
>
> Packie, the operative words are "arctic" and "antarctic." Can't I learn
> you nothin?
>
> So far, not a soul has spelled these words correctly.

"Larry Smith" > wrote in message >...
> "pacplyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > nafod40 > wrote
> >
>
>
> Packie, the operative words are "arctic" and "antarctic." Can't I learn
> you nothin?
>
> So far, not a soul has spelled these words correctly.


Hey Latchless,

I is what I is. A glorified truck driver. I spelt it like it sowns.

And here I thought someone was going to attack my rendition of
"bueracrat." Didn't see the geographic ones. By all means Latch,
please continue to correct us. Where else but RAH can you get a
lawyer to spell check you for free? ;-)


pacplyer

(learnt ma spelling reading aviation magazines)

[Russell Kent]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:23:19 -0600, RR Urban > wrote:

> Sydney dear,
>
> You and Stella have every right to be super
> proud of women aviators, especially in the
> wake of this Jon Johanson fiasco.
>
> Too many times, including now...
> You gals get the short end of the stick.
>
> May I apologize for the chauvinistic
> behavior that might be attributed to me
> or my chauvinistic buddies.
>
> Kudos to Polly...
> for saving a dumb ass and GA
> from further embarassment.
>
> Barnyard BOb --

John Ousterhout replied:

> Who are you?
>
> and what have you done with Bob?

Shhhh! Do we really care? :-)

Russell Kent

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >, BWB <CIA> wrote:
>
>>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 there: _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
>

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.

See: <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8183083%255E1702,00.html> (beware possible line-wrap)

[Snowbird]

(StellaStar) wrote in message >...
> >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/

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?)

[Snowbird]

Ed Wischmeyer > wrote in message >...
> > entire legions of lawyers waiting to sue the US Government for supplying him
> > the wrong type of fuel?

> 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,

With all respect, if you or I or "The World's Classiest Pilot"
(whoever he or she may be) bites it while flying, whether or not
someone gets sued will have little to do with our class or what
kind of guy we are.

It will have everything to do with factors beyond our control,
mostly our surviving kin and whatever decisions they might make
under the combined influence of grief and legal advice.

FWIW,
Sydney

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Eric Miller > wrote:
>"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!

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.

Johanson is enough of a bozo that he _will_not_ "learn from experience", either.
He has publicly stated that on a future attempt he "will _not_ do anything
different". see:
<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8183083%255E1702,00.html>

[Kevin Horton]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:46 +0000, Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article >, BWB <CIA> wrote:
>>
>>>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 there: _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
>>
>>
> 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.
>
> See:
> <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8183083%255E1702,00.html>
> (beware possible line-wrap)

She, like Jon Johanson, had made sure that fuel was available at all her
planned stops, but she did not make sure that fuel was available at all
possible diversion airfields (the list of planned legs on her web site
shows that McMurdo was a planned fuel stop).

She, like Jon Johanson, ran into higher than expected wind over Antartica,
and had to divert. She, like Jon Johanson, diverted to an airfield that
did not have fuel for her (she went back to her destination, but she had
already used all the fuel in her fuel cache).

Please explain how her planning was any better than Jon Johanson's.

<http://www.worldwings.org/route.htm>
<http://worldwings.mantaur.co.uk/diary.aspx?mode=D&ID=226>
<http://worldwings.mantaur.co.uk/diary.aspx?mode=D&ID=228>
<http://worldwings.mantaur.co.uk/diary.aspx?mode=D&ID=230>
<http://worldwings.mantaur.co.uk/diary.aspx?mode=D&ID=232>

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[Jerry Springer]

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article >,
> Eric Miller > wrote:
>
>>"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!
>
>
> 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.
>
> Johanson is enough of a bozo that he _will_not_ "learn from experience", either.
> He has publicly stated that on a future attempt he "will _not_ do anything
> different". see:
> <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8183083%255E1702,00.html>
>
So what have you done besides write like a moron? That "bozo" as you call him
has done more with his RV-4 than you can ever hope to do with your pitiful life.
People like ought to go crawl in a hole and pull the dirt in. BTW what is it
that you fly and have built with your own hands? Lets hear about your great
accomplishments in aviation.

[RR Urban]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:12:54 -0600, Russell Kent >
wrote:

>> Sydney dear,
>>
>> You and Stella have every right to be super
>> proud of women aviators, especially in the
>> wake of this Jon Johanson fiasco.
>>
>> Too many times, including now...
>> You gals get the short end of the stick.
>>
>> May I apologize for the chauvinistic
>> behavior that might be attributed to me
>> or my chauvinistic buddies.
>>
>> Kudos to Polly...
>> for saving a dumb ass and GA
>> from further embarassment.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>John Ousterhout replied:
>
>> Who are you?
>>
>> and what have you done with Bob?
>
>Shhhh! Do we really care? :-)
>
>Russell Kent
++++++++++++++++++++

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

Barnyard BOb --

[Russell Kent]

RR Urban wrote:

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

[RR Urban]

>
>> Hey Jaun....
>> Nothing like having friends.
>> Know where I can find some? :o)
>>
>> 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 --

[Andrew Rowley]

(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.

[Andrew Rowley]

(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.

[Andrew Rowley]

(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.

[Andrew Rowley]

(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.

[Big John]

Robert

Finally out of Hospital :o(

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.
>
>

[Big John]

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)

[Big John]

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. :o(

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.

[Big John]

Morgans

Just back out of hospital and in slow recovery :o(

"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
>
>???
>

[Larry Smith]

"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?

[pacplyer]

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

[Andrew Rowley]

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. :o(

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.

[Morgans]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans
>
> Just back out of hospital and in slow recovery :o(
>
> "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

[Jerry Springer]

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. :o(
>
>
> 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.

[John Ousterhout]

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.-

[RR Urban]

>>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.

[nafod40]

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?

[RR Urban]

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 -

[Model Flyer]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Robert
>
> Finally out of Hospital :o(
>
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.
> >
> >
>