Grandmother Goes Down at the Pole

[BJ]

http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=2549&source=12
"Following the reception of a distress call early this morning, a
massive search for 63 year-old Jenny Murray and her co-pilot, Colin
Bodil began and culminated in their successful rescue.

It was thought that the pair, who were attempting to be the first
people to fly around the world from pole to pole had ditched in the
icy waters south of the Falkland Islands. Though Mrs. Murray
sustained a broken arm and her co-pilot suffered chest injuries, they
erected a tent in -40C temperatures.

The 63 year old Grandmother and her co-pilot will be flown to Punta
Arenas in Chile for Medical treatment."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1014182.htm
"Helicopter pilot Jennifer Murray, 63, suffered a broken arm, while
co-pilot Colin Bodill, 53, has chest injuries, information sent from
the US Antarctic base of Patriot Hill says, which organised the
rescue".

Hmmm - sic 'em boys.

[Peter R.]

BJ wrote:

> The 63 year old Grandmother and her co-pilot will be flown to Punta
> Arenas in Chile for Medical treatment."

I wonder if the doctors will find hoof prints on her forehead
and incriminating Claus marks on her back.



--
Peter
"Grandma got run over by a Reindeer"









----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Barry Phease]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:17:31 +1000, BJ wrote:

> http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=2549&source=12
> "Following the reception of a distress call early this morning, a
> massive search for 63 year-old Jenny Murray and her co-pilot, Colin
> Bodil began and culminated in their successful rescue.

I wonder if they ran out of fuel? :)

--
Barry Phease


http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp

[Ben Sego]

Barry Phease wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:17:31 +1000, BJ wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=2549&source=12
>>"Following the reception of a distress call early this morning, a
>>massive search for 63 year-old Jenny Murray and her co-pilot, Colin
>>Bodil began and culminated in their successful rescue.
>
>
> I wonder if they ran out of fuel? :)
>
Poor planning. **** on'em, I say.

B.S.

[Ben Sego]

Ben Sego wrote:
> Barry Phease wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:17:31 +1000, BJ wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=2549&source=12
>>> "Following the reception of a distress call early this morning, a
>>> massive search for 63 year-old Jenny Murray and her co-pilot, Colin
>>> Bodil began and culminated in their successful rescue.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if they ran out of fuel? :)
>>
> Poor planning. **** on'em, I say.
>
> B.S.
>
Oops. Wrong thread. How about this:

The teamwork evidenced by the rescuers is admirable. And what of those
brave, pioneering aviators, who, putting risk to life and limb aside,
struck out on a truly remarkable attemp. They've really set themselves
apart from other pretenders.

Good show to all those who helped out, and I applaud anyone who
undertakes such a risky, yet admirable venture. Unless they've done it
before. Or they're Australian.

There. That feels better.

B.S.

[StellaStar]

>The 63 year old Grandmother and her co-pilot

Harrumph! How come I never read articles that say, "Bob Hoover, a spritely
white-haired grandfather in a tidy matching ensemble..."?

[Tarla Star]

Ben Sego wrote:


>>
> Poor planning. **** on'em, I say.

Now now, you'll have the Sheep boy on you for that. Let's just say they
were both heroic adventurers ...ah horse****, damned **** poor planning
indeed.

[Cub Driver]

It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Neil Gerace]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.

Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers, and
shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.

[Eric Miller]

Newsflash!

Plane goes down on an unprecedent flight... nowhere near the South Pole and
not attempting to set a record!!!

Details on the 11 o'clock news.

=D

[Eric Miller]

Newsflash!

Plane goes down on an unprecedent flight... nowhere near the South Pole and
not attempting to set a record!!!

Details on the 11 o'clock news.

=D

[BJ]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:45 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:
>
>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>latitude).

Sure seems to be. In addition to the highly publicised (and
criticised) aviation expeditions there's a host of other unsupported
ground based privateers - more than a dozen I think - mainly ex the
US.

And some officially sanctioned activities are landing in strife with
the very recent drowning of a bunch of Koreans which seems to have
passed without much comment.

"Eight South Koreans, including four scientists working at an
Antarctic research centre, are missing after their boats capsized in
rough weather, Reuters reports.A boat carrying three scientists went
missing on Sunday as they returned to South Korea's polar research
base at King George Island after seeing off 24 colleagues returning to
Seoul. Immediately after the boat capsized, a second vessel carrying
five people left to search for them and suffered the same fate."

[Bruce Hamilton]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.

Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
refused to provide Avgas because:-

1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.

2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as required ),
probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
planning.

3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance or take
notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who gave
him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been been
deferred.

4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected, so
always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base. He
radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough fuel,
but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.

5. The US offered transport out for both him and his plane - he didn't need
to fly out.

To much of the world, the West Island of New Zealand is known as Australia,
and it's definitely not the Grey Havens. Mr Johannson was from Adelaide.

Bruce Hamilton

[Jerry Springer]

Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>
>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>
>
> Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
> of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
> refused to provide Avgas because:-
>
> 1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.
>
> 2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as required ),
> probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
> planning.
>
> 3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance or take
> notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who gave
> him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been been
> deferred.
>
> 4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected, so
> always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base. He
> radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough fuel,
> but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.
>
Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
about.

[Brian Harmer]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:55:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>
>
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> Cub Driver > wrote:

>>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.

>> Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
>> of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
>> refused to provide Avgas because:-

(snip)
>>
>Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
>about.


Can you please be specific ... which of Bruce's statements were
factually incorrect?

[Bruce Hamilton]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:55:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
>> of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
>> refused to provide Avgas because:-
>>
>> 1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.
>>
>> 2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as required ),
>> probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
>> planning.
>>
>> 3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance or take
>> notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who gave
>> him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been been
>> deferred.
>>
>> 4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected, so
>> always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base. He
>> radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough fuel,
>> but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.
>>
>Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
>about.

Wow. Your detailed refutation clearly demonstrates your abilities, I'm
impressed. Just to help you get a clue, lonely as it may be, here's
some references from Antarctic New Zealand.

http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242573-1-7,00.html
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242330-1-7,00.html

US and New Zealand officials said Johanson was ill-prepared to make
the polar flight and it was irresponsible for him to set out.

Antarctica New Zealand spokeswoman Shelly Peebles said US and New
Zealand authorities were being painted in a bad light but Johanson had
taken a very irresponsible approach.

She said he filed a flight plan just before he left but kept his South
Pole flight plan a secret because he knew both American and New
Zealand authorities would have stopped it.

"All our research points to the fact that this guy had one mission in
mind and that was to fly over the South Pole.

"He abdicated complete personal responsibility for any kind of
contingency plan or consideration of how he was going to get back with
limited fuel."

Bruce Hamilton

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> latitude).

Well, it *is* the Summer vacation period down there.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Jerry Springer]

Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:55:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
>>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>>Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
>>>of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
>>>refused to provide Avgas because:-
>>>
>>>1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.
>>>
>>>2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as required ),
>>>probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
>>>planning.
>>>
>>>3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance or take
>>>notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who gave
>>>him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been been
>>>deferred.
>>>
>>>4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected, so
>>>always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base. He
>>>radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough fuel,
>>>but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.
>>>
>>
>>Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
>>about.
>
>
> Wow. Your detailed refutation clearly demonstrates your abilities, I'm
> impressed. Just to help you get a clue, lonely as it may be, here's
> some references from Antarctic New Zealand.
>
> http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242573-1-7,00.html
> http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242330-1-7,00.html
>
> US and New Zealand officials said Johanson was ill-prepared to make
> the polar flight and it was irresponsible for him to set out.
>
> Antarctica New Zealand spokeswoman Shelly Peebles said US and New
> Zealand authorities were being painted in a bad light but Johanson had
> taken a very irresponsible approach.
>
> She said he filed a flight plan just before he left but kept his South
> Pole flight plan a secret because he knew both American and New
> Zealand authorities would have stopped it.
>
> "All our research points to the fact that this guy had one mission in
> mind and that was to fly over the South Pole.
>
> "He abdicated complete personal responsibility for any kind of
> contingency plan or consideration of how he was going to get back with
> limited fuel."
>
> Bruce Hamilton
>
And what the hell else do you expect them to say????

[Brian Harmer]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:54:12 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:


>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:55:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
>>>>of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
>>>>refused to provide Avgas because:-

>>>Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
>>>about.

>> Wow. Your detailed refutation clearly demonstrates your abilities, I'm
>> impressed. Just to help you get a clue, lonely as it may be, here's
>> some references from Antarctic New Zealand.
(snip)
>And what the hell else do you expect them to say????

And you still have not added a single fact to the discussion to refute
Bruce's original position.

[RR Urban]

>>>>>Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
>>>>>of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
>>>>>refused to provide Avgas because:-
>
>>>>Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
>>>>about.
>
>>> Wow. Your detailed refutation clearly demonstrates your abilities, I'm
>>> impressed. Just to help you get a clue, lonely as it may be, here's
>>> some references from Antarctic New Zealand.
>(snip)
>>And what the hell else do you expect them to say????
>
>And you still have not added a single fact to the discussion to refute
>Bruce's original position.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++


http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242573-1-7,00.html
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242330-1-7,00.html

FACTS ?????

Could be, but...

Anyone that uses hard copy media for anything more than lining
the bird cage, is more than just a few bricks short of a full load.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Nelly]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:17:31 +1000, BJ > wrote:

>http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=2549&source=12
>"Following the reception of a distress call early this morning, a
>massive search for 63 year-old Jenny Murray and her co-pilot, Colin
>Bodil began and culminated in their successful rescue.
>
>It was thought that the pair, who were attempting to be the first
>people to fly around the world from pole to pole had ditched in the
>icy waters south of the Falkland Islands. Though Mrs. Murray
>sustained a broken arm and her co-pilot suffered chest injuries, they
>erected a tent in -40C temperatures.
>
>The 63 year old Grandmother and her co-pilot will be flown to Punta
>Arenas in Chile for Medical treatment."
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1014182.htm
>"Helicopter pilot Jennifer Murray, 63, suffered a broken arm, while
>co-pilot Colin Bodill, 53, has chest injuries, information sent from
>the US Antarctic base of Patriot Hill says, which organised the
>rescue".
>
>Hmmm - sic 'em boys.

I am going to apologise to any prudes here first off for either my
weird sense of humour or my gutter mind, I can't work out which. The
reason for my apology is the rather ambiguous subject header. The
little snippet at the end tends to lend support as well.


Nelly.
If you see someone without a smile, give them one of yours :-)

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> > latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> > Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>
> Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers, and
> shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.

Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?

By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
was eventually offered)

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...
>
>
> Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> > Cub Driver > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> >>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> >>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
> >
> >
> > Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
> > of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
> > refused to provide Avgas because:-
> >
> > 1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.
> >
> > 2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as required ),
> > probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
> > planning.
> >
> > 3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance or take
> > notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who gave
> > him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been been
> > deferred.
> >
> > 4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected, so
> > always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base. He
> > radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough fuel,
> > but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.
> >
> Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
> about.

Referring to yourself are you?

Mr Hamilton's post is the best summary of the facts I have seen.

Antarctic flying conditions are so unpredictable that it is not unusual
for planes to have to fly all the way down and all the way back without
landing if the weather closes in in the few hours that it takes to fly
out of Christchurch.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:55:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> >> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
> >>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> >>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> >>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>
> >> Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
> >> of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
> >> refused to provide Avgas because:-
>
> (snip)
> >>
> >Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
> >about.
>
>
> Can you please be specific ... which of Bruce's statements were
> factually incorrect?

None of them.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

[Mainlander]

In article . net>,
says...
>
>
> Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:55:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> >>
> >>>Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
> >>>of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
> >>>refused to provide Avgas because:-
> >>>
> >>>1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.
> >>>
> >>>2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as required ),
> >>>probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
> >>>planning.
> >>>
> >>>3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance or take
> >>>notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who gave
> >>>him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been been
> >>>deferred.
> >>>
> >>>4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected, so
> >>>always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base. He
> >>>radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough fuel,
> >>>but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
> >>about.
> >
> >
> > Wow. Your detailed refutation clearly demonstrates your abilities, I'm
> > impressed. Just to help you get a clue, lonely as it may be, here's
> > some references from Antarctic New Zealand.
> >
> > http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242573-1-7,00.html
> > http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242330-1-7,00.html
> >
> > US and New Zealand officials said Johanson was ill-prepared to make
> > the polar flight and it was irresponsible for him to set out.
> >
> > Antarctica New Zealand spokeswoman Shelly Peebles said US and New
> > Zealand authorities were being painted in a bad light but Johanson had
> > taken a very irresponsible approach.
> >
> > She said he filed a flight plan just before he left but kept his South
> > Pole flight plan a secret because he knew both American and New
> > Zealand authorities would have stopped it.
> >
> > "All our research points to the fact that this guy had one mission in
> > mind and that was to fly over the South Pole.
> >
> > "He abdicated complete personal responsibility for any kind of
> > contingency plan or consideration of how he was going to get back with
> > limited fuel."
> >
> > Bruce Hamilton
> >
> And what the hell else do you expect them to say????

More factual than you, apparently.

The fields at McMurdo do not meet international aviation standards.
Flying in Antarctica is hazardous due to weather and other conditions.

The US and NZ bases do not require avgas because they fly only turbine
aircraft.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

[Jerry Springer]

Mainlander wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>>
>>Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers, and
>>shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.
>
>
> Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?
>
> By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
> thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
> was eventually offered)
>

Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????

[Bruce Hamilton]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:54:12 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:55:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
>> > wrote:
....
>>>Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
>>>about.
>> Wow. Your detailed refutation clearly demonstrates your abilities, I'm
>> impressed. Just to help you get a clue, lonely as it may be, here's
>> some references from Antarctic New Zealand.
>>
>> http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242573-1-7,00.html
>> http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242330-1-7,00.html
>
>And what the hell else do you expect them to say????

Your refutation of the data is where?. So far the score reads armchair
quarterback 5, plonker 0.

I think I'd believe the reported comments from a recognised
spokesperson for a reputable agency ( substantiated by various other
available commentary from other sources ) over an abusive poster on
Usenet who hasn't even provided one shred of evidence to counter the
information I provided.

Others have also asked for your information that shows the above
reports are incorrect. Incidently, I don't intend to accept Mr
Johanson's unsubtantiated views either - he claims he planned well
and was well prepared.

The clear evidence is that he wasn't, he ended up making an emergency
landing on an airfield, and publicly bad-mouthing the people there. He
put himself in that predicament, nobody else.

Bruce Hamilton

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:49:56 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>>
>> Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> > Cub Driver > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>> >>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>> >>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>> >
>> >
>> > Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
>> > of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
>> > refused to provide Avgas because:-
>> >
>> > 1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.
>> >
>> > 2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as required ),
>> > probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
>> > planning.
>> >
>> > 3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance or take
>> > notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who gave
>> > him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been been
>> > deferred.
>> >
>> > 4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected, so
>> > always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base. He
>> > radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough fuel,
>> > but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.
>> >
>> Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
>> about.
>
>Referring to yourself are you?
>
>Mr Hamilton's post is the best summary of the facts I have seen.
>
>Antarctic flying conditions are so unpredictable that it is not unusual
>for planes to have to fly all the way down and all the way back without
>landing if the weather closes in in the few hours that it takes to fly
>out of Christchurch.


The LC-130's have a PSR of approx 4 hrs out from CHC.
At that time, they must commit or return.

I am very aware of one instance where one was past PSR and declared an
emergency. Mac Tower said return to CHC as they could not handle it.
Rapid calculations were made and it was found they barely had enough
fuel to reach NZ.

As it turned out, the pilot, also the CO of VXE-6 at the time, had
enough fuel to make one only shot at landing at Dunedin's Momona
Airport. The FE. a family friend, after the flight returned to CHC
said in all his years of flying, which included that year being his
approx 8th Antarctic season, he'd never had such a close shave.

What saved their bacon was the CO had taken part in an exchange
programme with the RNZAF and had flown into Momona several times in
Kiwi C-130's so he knew the approach etc.

I was at the hanger waiting with the men and women of 6 waiting for
this flight to make it back to NZ as my fiance was on this flight .
We all knew there was the risk of ditching.

For those that remember the mid-winter mail drops, the C-141-B's on
the Pole run were refuelled three times in mid-air by a KC-10.

I've known many pilots that have served in 6 and the USAF. None will
tell you it's a breeze flying the Antarctic route.

Some may remember the crash when a JATO bottle wrenched loose on
takeoff and the subsequent crash of the plane that went in to rescue
to the original crew. [I think I still have the photos of this
somewhere].
Then the crash of a further plane that went in a few years later - a
flight several friends died or were badly injured in.

Cath

[Jerry Springer]

Col wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:14:58 GMT, Jerry Springer > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Mainlander wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>>>>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>>>>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers, and
>>>>shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?
>>>
>>>By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
>>>thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
>>>was eventually offered)
>>>
>>
>>Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????
>
>
> It was widely reported Pignut .
>
Oh wow Pignut!!! LOL, I don't believe I have ever been called that name before.
Now again, where is it widely reported that he refused to pay for fuel?

[Jerry Springer]

Col wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:14:58 GMT, Jerry Springer > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Mainlander wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>>>>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>>>>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers, and
>>>>shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?
>>>
>>>By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
>>>thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
>>>was eventually offered)
>>>
>>
>>Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????
>
>
> It was widely reported Pignut .
>

One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your answer.
http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html

[Montblack]

("Nelly" wrote)
> I am going to apologise to any prudes here first off for either my
> weird sense of humour or my gutter mind, I can't work out which. The
> reason for my apology is the rather ambiguous subject header.


Re: The Grandmother header

I accept your gutter mind, .....I mean your apologies. <g>

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Bruce Hamilton]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:37:08 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
>then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your answer.
>http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html

Whilst you're waiting, why don't you simply point to links that
support your assertion about my post ( which didn't make the claim
he refused to pay for fuel ) " Once again another armchair quarterback
that does not know what they are talking about. "

Bruce Hamilton

[Jerry Springer]

Bruce Hamilton wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:37:08 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
>
>>One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
>>then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your answer.
>>http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html
>
>
> Whilst you're waiting, why don't you simply point to links that
> support your assertion about my post ( which didn't make the claim
> he refused to pay for fuel ) " Once again another armchair quarterback
> that does not know what they are talking about. "
>
> Bruce Hamilton

Bruce you base your reasons on what you have read, I base my reasons on talking
to a person that talked to Jon and his crew personally. I am sure that the two
well never meet in the middle as each has their own agenda.
I suppose I can never prove you wrong any more than you can prove me wrong.

[tony roberts]

> I am going to apologise to any prudes here first off for either my
> weird sense of humour or my gutter mind, I can't work out which. The
> reason for my apology is the rather ambiguous subject header. The
> little snippet at the end tends to lend support as well.

That also struck me immediately. I thought that we were going to be
redirected to alt.binaries.pictures . . . . . . . . :):):)


--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Bruce Hamilton]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:20:49 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:37:08 GMT, Jerry Springer
>> > wrote:
>>>One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
>>>then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your answer.
>>>http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html
>> Whilst you're waiting, why don't you simply point to links that
>> support your assertion about my post ( which didn't make the claim
>> he refused to pay for fuel ) " Once again another armchair quarterback
>> that does not know what they are talking about. "
>
>Bruce you base your reasons on what you have read, I base my reasons on talking
>to a person that talked to Jon and his crew personally.

Sorry, yet another assumption. It's not only based on what I read, the
person I share my office with has just flown back from Scott Base last
Thursday, after spending six weeks at a remote station on the ice.
Obviously he only heard all the details when he returned to Scott
Base, but the comments he heard all reinforce the duplicity and
stupidity of Mr Johanson.

>I am sure that the two well never meet in the middle as each has their own agenda.

What agenda is that?. You claimed I didn't know what I was talking
about. Fine, show me where I was wrong. I've provided some publicly-
available sources for the various pronoucements, surely you can do the
same - after all Mr Johanson and his partner weren't actually
shrinking violets when it came to dealing with the media.

I'm sure he will put his own spin on events - but let's get real here,
he only received fuel because another adventurer ( who had honestly
and sensibily followed all the guidances about preparing for such
flights ) kindly provided some. Otherwise he would have been flying
out on a transport plane.

>I suppose I can never prove you wrong any more than you can prove me wrong.

You said I didn't know what I was talking about, but Mr Johanson ended
up sitting beside a runway doing a media grovel for fuel, bad-mouthing
the authorities. Understand this, if there had been even the slighest
indication he was in danger there, those authorities would have
immediately responded will all available resources.

I don't think there is any evidence to counter the actual events.
Being an "adventurer" doesn't excuse people from responsibility and
integrity. I'm being repetitively provocative because you decided to
attack me, not the information I provided.

Bruce Hamilton

[Jerry Springer]

Bruce Hamilton wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:20:49 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:37:08 GMT, Jerry Springer
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
>>>>then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your answer.
>>>>http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html
>>>
>>>Whilst you're waiting, why don't you simply point to links that
>>>support your assertion about my post ( which didn't make the claim
>>>he refused to pay for fuel ) " Once again another armchair quarterback
>>>that does not know what they are talking about. "
>>
>>Bruce you base your reasons on what you have read, I base my reasons on talking
>>to a person that talked to Jon and his crew personally.
>
>
> Sorry, yet another assumption. It's not only based on what I read, the
> person I share my office with has just flown back from Scott Base last
> Thursday, after spending six weeks at a remote station on the ice.
> Obviously he only heard all the details when he returned to Scott
> Base, but the comments he heard all reinforce the duplicity and
> stupidity of Mr Johanson.
>
>
>>I am sure that the two well never meet in the middle as each has their own agenda.
>
>
> What agenda is that?. You claimed I didn't know what I was talking
> about. Fine, show me where I was wrong. I've provided some publicly-
> available sources for the various pronoucements, surely you can do the
> same - after all Mr Johanson and his partner weren't actually
> shrinking violets when it came to dealing with the media.
>
> I'm sure he will put his own spin on events - but let's get real here,
> he only received fuel because another adventurer ( who had honestly
> and sensibily followed all the guidances about preparing for such
> flights ) kindly provided some. Otherwise he would have been flying
> out on a transport plane.
>
>
>>I suppose I can never prove you wrong any more than you can prove me wrong.
>
>
> You said I didn't know what I was talking about, but Mr Johanson ended
> up sitting beside a runway doing a media grovel for fuel, bad-mouthing
> the authorities. Understand this, if there had been even the slighest
> indication he was in danger there, those authorities would have
> immediately responded will all available resources.
>
> I don't think there is any evidence to counter the actual events.
> Being an "adventurer" doesn't excuse people from responsibility and
> integrity. I'm being repetitively provocative because you decided to
> attack me, not the information I provided.
>
> Bruce Hamilton
As I said before you are repeating the party line of the folks that did not
want to help him.

[K9 Lover]

Point of order Mr Chairman ...

He was a bloody Aussie, not a Kiwi


"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[K9 Lover]

Ummm ...

We don't have a West Island.

He's an Aussie who started his trip from the lower part of our South Island.



> Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West
Island
> of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
> refused to provide Avgas because:-

[Mainlander]

In article et>,
says...
>
>
> Mainlander wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> >>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> >>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> >>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
> >>
> >>Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers, and
> >>shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.
> >
> >
> > Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?
> >
> > By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
> > thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
> > was eventually offered)
> >
>
> Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????

He was asked to give money to the Polly whatsit fund which had brought it
in for her flight, but he declined to do so. It cost them $8000 to ship
in their fuel.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

[TJ]

(Bruce Hamilton) wrote:

>I think I'd believe the reported comments from a recognised
>spokesperson for a reputable agency ( substantiated by various other
>available commentary from other sources ) over an abusive poster on
>Usenet who hasn't even provided one shred of evidence to counter the
>information I provided.

Yeah, and "recognised spokespersons for reputable agencies" would
never lie or spin a story to suit their agency's agenda. Parish the
thought. And the news media will always get the story right. Face it,
you blindly accept the official line because it meshes well with your
bias in the matter.

[TJ]

(Bruce Hamilton) wrote:

>Sorry, yet another assumption. It's not only based on what I read, the
>person I share my office with has just flown back from Scott Base last
>Thursday, after spending six weeks at a remote station on the ice.

Ah ha! So you are not a detached observer in the matter after all.
Rather, your obvious bias is either because of your close ties to some
personnel working down there or perhaps, just perhaps, because of your
close ties to the program(s) themselves. Whichever the case, you are
merely an unofficial mouthpiece for the official "spin".

>Obviously he only heard all the details when he returned to Scott
>Base, but the comments he heard all reinforce the duplicity and
>stupidity of Mr Johanson.

Oh now that really convinces me. NOT! Get real. Same mindset and same
bias = same spin. The truth is likely somewhere between both sides'
accounts.

[TJ]

Jerry Springer > wrote:

> As I said before you are repeating the party line of the folks that did not
>want to help him.

Exactly.

[Jerry Springer]

Mainlander wrote:
> In article et>,
> says...
>
>>
>>Mainlander wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>>>>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>>>>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers, and
>>>>shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?
>>>
>>>By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
>>>thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
>>>was eventually offered)
>>>
>>
>>Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????
>
>
> He was asked to give money to the Polly whatsit fund which had brought it
> in for her flight, but he declined to do so. It cost them $8000 to ship
> in their fuel.
>
Once again show me where????? In fact your story is still wrong it cost them
$12,000 to ship it there.

[Jimmy Galvin]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:55:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> >>
> >>>Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West
Island
> >>>of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US
base
> >>>refused to provide Avgas because:-
> >>>
> >>>1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.
> >>>
> >>>2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as
required ),
> >>>probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
> >>>planning.
> >>>
> >>>3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance
or take
> >>>notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who
gave
> >>>him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been
been
> >>>deferred.
> >>>
> >>>4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected,
so
> >>>always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base.
He
> >>>radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough
fuel,
> >>>but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are
talking
> >>about.
> >
> >
> > Wow. Your detailed refutation clearly demonstrates your abilities, I'm
> > impressed. Just to help you get a clue, lonely as it may be, here's
> > some references from Antarctic New Zealand.
> >
> > http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242573-1-7,00.html
> > http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,242330-1-7,00.html
> >
> > US and New Zealand officials said Johanson was ill-prepared to make
> > the polar flight and it was irresponsible for him to set out.
> >
> > Antarctica New Zealand spokeswoman Shelly Peebles said US and New
> > Zealand authorities were being painted in a bad light but Johanson had
> > taken a very irresponsible approach.
> >
> > She said he filed a flight plan just before he left but kept his South
> > Pole flight plan a secret because he knew both American and New
> > Zealand authorities would have stopped it.
> >
> > "All our research points to the fact that this guy had one mission in
> > mind and that was to fly over the South Pole.
> >
> > "He abdicated complete personal responsibility for any kind of
> > contingency plan or consideration of how he was going to get back with
> > limited fuel."
> >
> > Bruce Hamilton
> >
> And what the hell else do you expect them to say????
>
Jerry:
You have stretched this about as far as possible. Your logic is flawed and
you are coming across as just plane silly.
Jimmy

[Bruce Hamilton]

TJ > wrote:
(Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>>Sorry, yet another assumption. It's not only based on what I read, the
>>person I share my office with has just flown back from Scott Base last
>>Thursday, after spending six weeks at a remote station on the ice.
>
>Ah ha! So you are not a detached observer in the matter after all.

Tsk, tsk, and that appears to be the best you and your ilk can do.
The challenge was to provide information that refuted the comments I made -
based on published information that I provided. I was accused of being "
another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking about. "

>Oh now that really convinces me. NOT! Get real. Same mindset and same
>bias = same spin. The truth is likely somewhere between both sides'
>accounts.

The truth remains, for all the huffing and puffing of Mr Springer and yourself,
that Mr Johanson was ill-prepared, duplicious, and ended up at McMurdo
bad-mouthing the people there and publicly begging for fuel.

He's admitted that he didn't file the correct flight plan because the
authorities wouldn't have permited the flight. He had insufficent fuel with no
contingency plan and supplies, and didn't abort the flight when he could, but
continued on to the South Pole, hoping to try and scavenge somebody else's
fuel.

The damsel that came galloping to the resue of Mr Johanson is the person who
should be given all the credit and admiration - she is truly an "adventurer"
not a duplicious and deceptive opportunist. She had worked in partnership with
the authorities for two years, building supplies, taking note of their
suggestions, discussing her plans and getting approval etc. etc.

Mr Stringer pointed to a general WWW site as evidence of his position in a
parallel argument about Mr Johanson's refusal to pay for the fuel. That site
supported at least three of my points, but rather than admit any, he, and now
you, appear keen to keep attacking my credibility - I've never claimed to be a
participant in this, and merely provided publically available information as
justification for my perception.

All I've asked is for those that dispute any the information I provided ( along
with publicly available sources ) to provide equally-acceptable alternatives,
and I don't really care about what you think of me or my credibility. Just
provide the requested alternative information of suitable quality.

So far, all I've seen is some mumbo jumbo about " I base my reasons on talking
to a person that talked to Jon and his crew personally ". As far as I'm
concerned, you could also talk in tongues, wear funny hats, and have secret
handshakes, but all I asked for is credible data that shows the information I
have provided is wrong.

I'm actually surprised that, given the self-inflicted predicament that the
duplicious Mr Johanson got himself into, that rational people believe that
anything he says is credible. A damsel had to come charging to the rescue of
this ill-prepared and duplicious "adventurer". Some people here obviously
think he's a good role model, and that inadequate planning and filing deceptive
flight plans are acceptable behaviour. I just hope you don't also pilot
commercial aircraft.

Followups set to nz.general only.

Bruce Hamilton

[Mainlander]

In article . net>,
says...
>
>
> Col wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:14:58 GMT, Jerry Springer > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Mainlander wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> >>>>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> >>>>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers, and
> >>>>shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?
> >>>
> >>>By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
> >>>thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
> >>>was eventually offered)
> >>>
> >>
> >>Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????
> >
> >
> > It was widely reported Pignut .
> >
>
> One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
> then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your answer.
> http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html

And that article further reinforces Johansen's stupidity. Quote
"Jon filed a flight plan for his trip just before departing, but he kept
his South Pole plans secret until the end, knowing that they would not be
approved. He claims to have done his homework on Antarctic flying and
weather conditions. However, his tires are too small for the ice
runway...since he didn't have the oversized low-ground-pressure balloon
tires such as used by the Twin Otters, the wheels sank into the snow and
he had to get assistance in getting towed off of the active airstrip. And
depending on the actual weather conditions, there were several other
hard-surface runways he could have diverted to---Patriot Hills, Novo,
Rothera, or even Marsh...at any of these he might have had an easier time
getting refueled."
--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:49:56 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> says...[i]
> >>
> >>
> >> Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> >> > Cub Driver > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> >> >>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> >> >>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Just to help your understanding of global political dynamics, the West Island
> >> > of New Zealand is where the pilot originated, and both the NZ and US base
> >> > refused to provide Avgas because:-
> >> >
> >> > 1. They didn't have any, and didn't want to give him Mogas.
> >> >
> >> > 2. He didn't seek advance permission to land at McMurdo ( as required ),
> >> > probably correctly assuming they would reject it, given his inadequate
> >> > planning.
> >> >
> >> > 3. He didn't organise logistic or search and rescue support in advance or take
> >> > notice of Antarctic station guidances - as did the British pilot who gave
> >> > him some of her contingency, as her well-planned expedition had been been
> >> > deferred.
> >> >
> >> > 4. He apparently wasn't carrying enough fuel for his stated objected, so
> >> > always intended to scavenge several hundred litres of fuel from a base. He
> >> > radioed the base on his southward journey saying he didn't have enough fuel,
> >> > but continued onto the point of no return and the South Pole anyway.
> >> >
> >> Once again another armchair quarterback that does not know what they are talking
> >> about.
> >
> >Referring to yourself are you?
> >
> >Mr Hamilton's post is the best summary of the facts I have seen.
> >
> >Antarctic flying conditions are so unpredictable that it is not unusual
> >for planes to have to fly all the way down and all the way back without
> >landing if the weather closes in in the few hours that it takes to fly
> >out of Christchurch.
>
>
> The LC-130's have a PSR of approx 4 hrs out from CHC.
> At that time, they must commit or return.
>
> I am very aware of one instance where one was past PSR and declared an
> emergency. Mac Tower said return to CHC as they could not handle it.
> Rapid calculations were made and it was found they barely had enough
> fuel to reach NZ.
>
> As it turned out, the pilot, also the CO of VXE-6 at the time, had
> enough fuel to make one only shot at landing at Dunedin's Momona
> Airport. The FE. a family friend, after the flight returned to CHC
> said in all his years of flying, which included that year being his
> approx 8th Antarctic season, he'd never had such a close shave.
>
> What saved their bacon was the CO had taken part in an exchange
> programme with the RNZAF and had flown into Momona several times in
> Kiwi C-130's so he knew the approach etc.
>
> I was at the hanger waiting with the men and women of 6 waiting for
> this flight to make it back to NZ as my fiance was on this flight .
> We all knew there was the risk of ditching.
>
> For those that remember the mid-winter mail drops, the C-141-B's on
> the Pole run were refuelled three times in mid-air by a KC-10.
>
> I've known many pilots that have served in 6 and the USAF. None will
> tell you it's a breeze flying the Antarctic route.
>
> Some may remember the crash when a JATO bottle wrenched loose on
> takeoff and the subsequent crash of the plane that went in to rescue
> to the original crew. .
> Then the crash of a further plane that went in a few years later - a
> flight several friends died or were badly injured in.

There was a minor incident with a plane just a couple of weeks back when
a ski came apart as they were preparing to take off, no problems but they
had to fly parts in to fix it up.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...
>
> (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>
> >Sorry, yet another assumption. It's not only based on what I read, the
> >person I share my office with has just flown back from Scott Base last
> >Thursday, after spending six weeks at a remote station on the ice.
>
> Ah ha! So you are not a detached observer in the matter after all.
> Rather, your obvious bias is either because of your close ties to some
> personnel working down there or perhaps, just perhaps, because of your
> close ties to the program(s) themselves. Whichever the case, you are
> merely an unofficial mouthpiece for the official "spin".
>
> >Obviously he only heard all the details when he returned to Scott
> >Base, but the comments he heard all reinforce the duplicity and
> >stupidity of Mr Johanson.
>
> Oh now that really convinces me. NOT! Get real. Same mindset and same
> bias = same spin. The truth is likely somewhere between both sides'
> accounts.

There's some very plain truth, which goes as follows:

The official policy is that private aircraft landing at the Antarctic
stations will not be refueled, the reason is that extra resources would
be needed to bring the fuel in and provide people to do it and this is
not the function of scientific research stations.

so they were within their rights in refusing to supply him with fuel

Secondly there are no aircraft that use that type of fuel at
McMurdo/Scott or the South Pole, as fuel has a limited life it is rather
unlikely that they would keep stocks just in case someone dropped in.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:20:22 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:


>Secondly there are no aircraft that use that type of fuel at
>McMurdo/Scott or the South Pole, as fuel has a limited life it is rather
>unlikely that they would keep stocks just in case someone dropped in.
>
I understand what you are saying. I'm just adding some information:
Aviation fuel is not formulated like auto fuel, it's specifically
formulated to remain viable after long storage.

I understand that no aircraft that normally fly to and land at
Antarctica use 100LL aviation fuel.

But if it were stored there, it would last a long time and would work
fine for people who used that type of fuel.

Corky Scott

[Bruce Hamilton]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:19:13 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>I understand what you are saying. I'm just adding some information:
>Aviation fuel is not formulated like auto fuel, it's specifically
>formulated to remain viable after long storage.

I agree it's actual life will be be longer than Mogas ( that's
verified by the more stringent potential gum specification in ASTM
D910 ), but aviation gasoline has also to be retested regularly by an
approved and qualified laboratory to verify that the products is still
OK. IIRC, it used to be every 6 months - with the major concerns being
the loss of volatility and decomposition of lead compounds and their
scavengers. Avgas is made from more stable hydrocarbon fractions, and
doesn't have the unstable detergents present in Mogas, so it should
pass several retests if containers are full, hermetic, and kept cool
and dark.

>But if it were stored there, it would last a long time and would work
>fine for people who used that type of fuel.

Being cold and dark, the Avgas may last longer down there than it
would in the tropics, but it still has to be sampled and retested
every 6 months ( I've just checked the military specifications, which
used to have the longest retest intervals ). Defstan 01-05, it's in
Table 2 on page 285 of page 334 - don't go to this link unless you
want a large download of all military fuel and lubricant
specifications!.
http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/01/005/00001300.pdf

The Antarctic bases didn't hold it because they don't use it, and once
it's passed "retest by" date it's usually downgraded to Mogas, as
happens if it doesn't pass the retest. It can't be used as Avgas (
it's formally quarantined ) until a retest verifies it's OK. If the
retest period is allowed to expire, it may have to pass a full
specification test before reapproval, depending on the local
regulations.

I hope this post doesn't sound impolite or abusive to you, as you
obviously wanted to add some data, but the storage constraints on
Avgas mean it has to be regularly retested before it can be accepted
as fuel for aircraft. Avgas is usually more stable than Mogas, but it
still has to be within a current test period.

Bruce Hamilton

[Jerry Springer]

Jimmy Galvin wrote:
>
>
> Jerry:
> You have stretched this about as far as possible. Your logic is flawed and
> you are coming across as just plane silly.
> Jimmy
>
>
If you say so Jimmy then it must be true. LOL

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:

> In article . net>,
> says...
> >
> >
> > Col wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:14:58 GMT, Jerry Springer >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Mainlander wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>In article >,
> > says...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
> > >>>>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
> > >>>>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers,
> > >>>>and
> > >>>>shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?
> > >>>
> > >>>By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
> > >>>thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
> > >>>was eventually offered)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????
> > >
> > >
> > > It was widely reported Pignut .
> > >
> >
> > One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
> > then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your
> > answer.
> > http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html
>
> And that article further reinforces Johansen's stupidity. Quote
> "Jon filed a flight plan for his trip just before departing, but he kept
> his South Pole plans secret until the end, knowing that they would not be
> approved. He claims to have done his homework on Antarctic flying and
> weather conditions. However, his tires are too small for the ice
> runway...since he didn't have the oversized low-ground-pressure balloon
> tires such as used by the Twin Otters, the wheels sank into the snow and
> he had to get assistance in getting towed off of the active airstrip. And
> depending on the actual weather conditions, there were several other
> hard-surface runways he could have diverted to---Patriot Hills, Novo,
> Rothera, or even Marsh...at any of these he might have had an easier time
> getting refueled."


And the article also states that the NSF people refused him access to
meteorological data. Does that sound like a responsible government
agency?

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:33:12 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
>
>> In article . net>,
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> > Col wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:14:58 GMT, Jerry Springer >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>Mainlander wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>>In article >,
>> > says...
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>>It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
>> > >>>>>latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
>> > >>>>>Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers,
>> > >>>>and
>> > >>>>shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?
>> > >>>
>> > >>>By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
>> > >>>thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
>> > >>>was eventually offered)
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > It was widely reported Pignut .
>> > >
>> >
>> > One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
>> > then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your
>> > answer.
>> > http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html
>>
>> And that article further reinforces Johansen's stupidity. Quote
>> "Jon filed a flight plan for his trip just before departing, but he kept
>> his South Pole plans secret until the end, knowing that they would not be
>> approved. He claims to have done his homework on Antarctic flying and
>> weather conditions. However, his tires are too small for the ice
>> runway...since he didn't have the oversized low-ground-pressure balloon
>> tires such as used by the Twin Otters, the wheels sank into the snow and
>> he had to get assistance in getting towed off of the active airstrip. And
>> depending on the actual weather conditions, there were several other
>> hard-surface runways he could have diverted to---Patriot Hills, Novo,
>> Rothera, or even Marsh...at any of these he might have had an easier time
>> getting refueled."
>
>
>And the article also states that the NSF people refused him access to
>meteorological data. Does that sound like a responsible government
>agency?

Again, the NSF et al are not there for general business purposes.

Are you aware that the NSF also uses pers from Ice Recon in MD as part
of their operation?

I doubt whether it would have really understood their charts.
Afterall, he wasn't the brightest bulb on the christmas tree was he.

Cath

[David Pears]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:15:49 GMT, (Bruce
Hamilton) wrote:

>I hope this post doesn't sound impolite or abusive to you, as you
>obviously wanted to add some data, but the storage constraints on
>Avgas mean it has to be regularly retested before it can be accepted
>as fuel for aircraft. Avgas is usually more stable than Mogas, but it
>still has to be within a current test period.

I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?

David

[matt weber]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:51:25 +0930, David Pears
> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:15:49 GMT, (Bruce
>Hamilton) wrote:
>
>>I hope this post doesn't sound impolite or abusive to you, as you
>>obviously wanted to add some data, but the storage constraints on
>>Avgas mean it has to be regularly retested before it can be accepted
>>as fuel for aircraft. Avgas is usually more stable than Mogas, but it
>>still has to be within a current test period.
>
>I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
>about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?
>

Yes and no, as Air New Zealand discovered. Many gas turbines have
other components like fuel pumps that turn out to be quite sensitive
to the lubricating properties of the fuel. The lubrication properties
of Avgas/Mogas are near nil. Jet A is actually pretty slippery stuff.
So while you can burn just about anything in the turbine, you have to
make sure that doing so doesn't damage something else...
>David

[Bruce Hamilton]

David Pears > wrote:

>I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
>about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?

The problem is that turbine fuel ( effectively an aviation kerosine ) has to
also satisfy several requirements, both with regard to engine performance and
safety. The fundamental ones are flash point ( temperature at which the fuel
will give off sufficient vapours to ignite if a flame is applied ) and freezing
point ( engines tend to stop when fuel turns to sludge ).

Avgas has suitably low freezing point, but the flash point is far lower than
the fuel systems on a commercial Jet A1 fuelled airliner are designed to cope
with. Military airliners often use a wide cut kerosine with a flash point well
below airfield ambients.

If a plane is carrying passengers, it's usually running on Jet A1, a narrow cut
fuel with a flash point above most airfield ambient temperatures ( > 38C ).
Flash point is also the easiest method of detecting whether a kerosine has been
contaminated by a gasoline. The 1997 explosion of the "empty" centre tank in
TWA Flight 800, has reignited interest in fuel flammability issues.

Kerosines tend to have more lubricity than gasolines ( higher sulphur and
viscosity ) but high pressure hydrotreating and hydrocracking have made fuels
"harder" ( less lubricity ), and NZ aviation authorities have convinced other
countries to include a lubricity specification in DefStan 91-91 but, AFAIK,
it's not yet in the more common ASTM D1655.

Note that refractory elements ( silicon, calcium, potassium, vanadium etc )
will erode-deposit on turbine blades, and they are present in higher boiling
fractions such as diesel ( which wouldn't pass the freezing point requirement -
but is used on ship and power-station gas turbines ). Fuels for gas turbines
tend to ensure such elements aren't present, even though falling out of the sky
isn't an option, as overhauls are very expensive.

There are a whole heap of other criteria for Jet fuels associated with
cleanliness, corrosivity, combustion properties, stability and approved
additives that mean than commercial aircraft tend to use a well defined narrow
cut kerosine fraction.

Bruce Hamilton

[Jack Watson]

"matt weber" > wrote in message reply:::
> >
> >I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
> >about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?
> >
>
> Yes and no, as Air New Zealand discovered. Many gas turbines have
> other components like fuel pumps that turn out to be quite sensitive
> to the lubricating properties of the fuel. The lubrication properties
> of Avgas/Mogas are near nil. Jet A is actually pretty slippery stuff.
> So while you can burn just about anything in the turbine, you have to
> make sure that doing so doesn't damage something else...
> >David
>


We had Garrett turbines powering 60Hz alternators at the Cooby Creek
Tracking Station at Toowoomba in the late 60's and found the FCU's chewing
up their internal bearings like crazy until we got an anti-static additive
put in the ATK. Electrostatic corrosion.

--
JW²
Norton AntiVirus 2003 installed
************************************

[Robert Loer]

Is it so very very hard to admit when one is mistaken?

Bruce wins this one.

Yeah, Jerry go ahead and belittle me now.


"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Jimmy Galvin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jerry:
> > You have stretched this about as far as possible. Your logic is flawed
and
> > you are coming across as just plane silly.
> > Jimmy
> >
> >
> If you say so Jimmy then it must be true. LOL
>

[Jerry Springer]

Robert Loer wrote:
> Is it so very very hard to admit when one is mistaken?
>
> Bruce wins this one.
>
> Yeah, Jerry go ahead and belittle me now.
>
>

Is your name Jimmy???? I have not seen you contribute anything to this
thread, did I miss your posts somewhere???
I have no problem with Bruce, he believes what he believes and I believe what I
believe. We just don't agree. I know Jon and how much planning goes into each
of his trips. What do you know Robert other that what you read? It is easy to
say what should have, could have been done after it is all over. Should I have
said to Bruce that he did not know what he was talking about? NO, that was to
strong but I still stand on the armchair quarterback part. At least Bruce was
not saying the ridiculous things that were being said here by others like he
refused to pay for fuel offered.
Once again Robert what is is that I am mistaken about?

Jerry



> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>
>>Jimmy Galvin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Jerry:
>>>You have stretched this about as far as possible. Your logic is flawed
>
> and
>
>>>you are coming across as just plane silly.
>>>Jimmy
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If you say so Jimmy then it must be true. LOL
>>
>
>
>

[Jimmy Galvin]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
>
> Robert Loer wrote:
> > Is it so very very hard to admit when one is mistaken?
> >
> > Bruce wins this one.
> >
> > Yeah, Jerry go ahead and belittle me now.
> >
> >
>
> Is your name Jimmy???? I have not seen you contribute anything to this
> thread, did I miss your posts somewhere???
> I have no problem with Bruce, he believes what he believes and I believe
what I
> believe. We just don't agree. I know Jon and how much planning goes into
each
> of his trips. What do you know Robert other that what you read? It is easy
to
> say what should have, could have been done after it is all over. Should I
have
> said to Bruce that he did not know what he was talking about? NO, that was
to
> strong but I still stand on the armchair quarterback part. At least Bruce
was
> not saying the ridiculous things that were being said here by others like
he
> refused to pay for fuel offered.
> Once again Robert what is is that I am mistaken about?
>
> Jerry

No, his name is Robert. Now Jerry try to follow this. I will explain it step
by step. Robert is spelled R, o, b, e, r, t. Jimmy is spelled J, i, m, m, y.
Please note that these two names are comprised of 11 letters total. One
having 6 letters, the other having 5, and none having been used in both
names. I am trying to explain this as logically and clearly as possible.
Oops, forgot, you are logically challenged. Well OK how about (sigh) I give
up.

It is admirable that you are sticking up for your friend but the fact is he
screwed up big time and had to depend on others to pull his chestnuts out of
the fire.
Jimmy

[Jerry Springer]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>>Is your name Jimmy???? I have not seen you contribute anything to this
>>thread, did I miss your posts somewhere???
>
>
> Stick it. This is a public forum. You want to communicate privately with Jimmy,
> use email. Until then, don't bitch if someone else opens up.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Yes it is a public forum, and isn't wonderful that we each can say and believe
what we want? Even you George are welcome to add your "Stick it" comment. :-)
That really sheds new light on the subject at hand.

I find your tag line interesting. Think about it.....

Anyway it is Christmas I am going to celibrate with family. Each of you that
think I am so wrong can have the last say on this.

Marry Christmas or Happy Holidays,

Jerry

[Jimmy Galvin]

> Anyway it is Christmas I am going to celibrate with family. Each of you
that
> think I am so wrong can have the last say on this.
>
> Marry Christmas or Happy Holidays,
>
> Jerry
>
And Merry Christmas to you and your family Jerry.
Best wishes,
Jimmy

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> Is your name Jimmy???? I have not seen you contribute anything to this
> thread, did I miss your posts somewhere???

Stick it. This is a public forum. You want to communicate privately with Jimmy,
use email. Until then, don't bitch if someone else opens up.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Big John]

Let me add a bit.

In the early days of Jet A/C, the fuel was JP-1. We used it in the
F/P-80 and T-33. If we had to land at a field that didn't have the
JP-1 we could fill up with gasoline and use it to get to a field that
had JP-1. We had to watch the TPT and not exceed the red line but the
gas worked fine.

We lost a little thrust using the gasoline vs JP-1 but just adjusted
the legs to fit to the range with gasoline.

Big John


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:55:18 +1300, Bruce Hamilton
> wrote:

>David Pears > wrote:
>
>>I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
>>about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?
>
>The problem is that turbine fuel ( effectively an aviation kerosine ) has to
>also satisfy several requirements, both with regard to engine performance and
>safety. The fundamental ones are flash point ( temperature at which the fuel
>will give off sufficient vapours to ignite if a flame is applied ) and freezing
>point ( engines tend to stop when fuel turns to sludge ).
>
>Avgas has suitably low freezing point, but the flash point is far lower than
>the fuel systems on a commercial Jet A1 fuelled airliner are designed to cope
>with. Military airliners often use a wide cut kerosine with a flash point well
>below airfield ambients.
>
>If a plane is carrying passengers, it's usually running on Jet A1, a narrow cut
>fuel with a flash point above most airfield ambient temperatures ( > 38C ).
>Flash point is also the easiest method of detecting whether a kerosine has been
>contaminated by a gasoline. The 1997 explosion of the "empty" centre tank in
>TWA Flight 800, has reignited interest in fuel flammability issues.
>
>Kerosines tend to have more lubricity than gasolines ( higher sulphur and
>viscosity ) but high pressure hydrotreating and hydrocracking have made fuels
>"harder" ( less lubricity ), and NZ aviation authorities have convinced other
>countries to include a lubricity specification in DefStan 91-91 but, AFAIK,
>it's not yet in the more common ASTM D1655.
>
>Note that refractory elements ( silicon, calcium, potassium, vanadium etc )
>will erode-deposit on turbine blades, and they are present in higher boiling
>fractions such as diesel ( which wouldn't pass the freezing point requirement -
>but is used on ship and power-station gas turbines ). Fuels for gas turbines
>tend to ensure such elements aren't present, even though falling out of the sky
>isn't an option, as overhauls are very expensive.
>
>There are a whole heap of other criteria for Jet fuels associated with
>cleanliness, corrosivity, combustion properties, stability and approved
>additives that mean than commercial aircraft tend to use a well defined narrow
>cut kerosine fraction.
>
>Bruce Hamilton

[zxc]

ftB
ig John > wrote in message >...
> Let me add a bit.
>
> In the early days of Jet A/C, the fuel was JP-1. We used it in the
> F/P-80 and T-33. If we had to land at a field that didn't have the
> JP-1 we could fill up with gasoline and use it to get to a field that
> had JP-1. We had to watch the TPT and not exceed the red line but the
> gas worked fine.
>
> We lost a little thrust using the gasoline vs JP-1 but just adjusted
> the legs to fit to the range with gasoline.
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:55:18 +1300, Bruce Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >David Pears > wrote:
> >
> >>I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
> >>about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?
> >
> >The problem is that turbine fuel ( effectively an aviation kerosine ) has to
> >also satisfy several requirements, both with regard to engine performance and
> >safety. The fundamental ones are flash point ( temperature at which the fuel
> >will give off sufficient vapours to ignite if a flame is applied ) and freezing
> >point ( engines tend to stop when fuel turns to sludge ).
> >
> >Avgas has suitably low freezing point, but the flash point is far lower than
> >the fuel systems on a commercial Jet A1 fuelled airliner are designed to cope
> >with. Military airliners often use a wide cut kerosine with a flash point well
> >below airfield ambients.
> >
> >If a plane is carrying passengers, it's usually running on Jet A1, a narrow cut
> >fuel with a flash point above most airfield ambient temperatures ( > 38C ).
> >Flash point is also the easiest method of detecting whether a kerosine has been
> >contaminated by a gasoline. The 1997 explosion of the "empty" centre tank in
> >TWA Flight 800, has reignited interest in fuel flammability issues.
> >
> >Kerosines tend to have more lubricity than gasolines ( higher sulphur and
> >viscosity ) but high pressure hydrotreating and hydrocracking have made fuels
> >"harder" ( less lubricity ), and NZ aviation authorities have convinced other
> >countries to include a lubricity specification in DefStan 91-91 but, AFAIK,
> >it's not yet in the more common ASTM D1655.
> >
> >Note that refractory elements ( silicon, calcium, potassium, vanadium etc )
> >will erode-deposit on turbine blades, and they are present in higher boiling
> >fractions such as diesel ( which wouldn't pass the freezing point requirement -
> >but is used on ship and power-station gas turbines ). Fuels for gas turbines
> >tend to ensure such elements aren't present, even though falling out of the sky
> >isn't an option, as overhauls are very expensive.
> >
> >There are a whole heap of other criteria for Jet fuels associated with
> >cleanliness, corrosivity, combustion properties, stability and approved
> >additives that mean than commercial aircraft tend to use a well defined narrow
> >cut kerosine fraction.
> >
> >Bruce Hamilton

[Paul Sengupta]

Bah. First I'd heard about this, not read much aviation press
recently.

http://www.polarfirst.com/html/press.php?recno=4

I see the helicopter they were flying was a Bell 407. Jennifer's
previous round the world record flights were all in an R-44, with
"Q" (Quentin Smith) either as co-pilot (1996) or flying another
helicopter (another R-44) alongside, with Colin Bodil flying his
microlight (2000).

http://www.earthrounders.com/other.html

Polly Vacher is also on her way to circumnavigate the world
via the two poles (having done it the "easy" way in 2001) in
her Piper Dakota.

http://www.worldwings.org/
http://www.earthrounders.com/singles.html

Paul

"BJ" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=2549&source=12
> "Following the reception of a distress call early this morning, a
> massive search for 63 year-old Jenny Murray and her co-pilot, Colin
> Bodil began and culminated in their successful rescue.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Wonder if she/they will get the bill for the cost of the rescue and the cost
of removing the aircraft and containing any spills... Here in Michigan the
state and the coast guard is getting stern about this with the ice fishermen
and the snowmobilers... Stay out on the ice after a warning has been posted
and have to be rescued and you will get a bill in the thousands of
dollars...

denny
"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> Bah. First I'd heard about this, not read much aviation press
> recently.