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.