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/