Grandmother Goes Down at the Pole

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

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.

Jerry Springer wrote:

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

Exactly.

(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 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

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/

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

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

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

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