Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Sydney

They did give him room and board. so can't be all bad.


Big John

What did you expect them to do, provide him a campsite in the permafrost?

Hey Big John,

Hope you're back fully ready for combat soon. :-) Saw your Greenland
punchout anniversary posting but couldn't comment since my machine was
on the blink. How did that turn out?

pacplyer

Big John wrote:

People keep laying out 3 times around the world.

Why the fourth attempt? Once would get him in the record book.

He must like playing Russian Roulette and after each circumnavigation
he spins the cylinder and pulls the trigger again. (

I guess he likes doing that type of flying. Why do any of us fly? This
is rec.aviation.homebuit, why would someone build their own aircraft?
Why do some people build several aircraft?

There isn't really a cutoff point between safe and risky. There is
just increasing degrees of risk, and different people draw the line at
different points. All these things are risky:
- flying light aircraft
- flying homebuilt aircraft
- flying single engine at night
- flying SE in IMC
- flying SE over water
- flying to Antarctica

I am sure that there are people in this group who would do things that
I would not do because I consider them too risky. Likewise I know a
lot of people who consider flying too risky. It's just different
perceptions, and the risks you are prepared to take to do what you
want to do.

"Big John" wrote in message
news
Morgans

Just back out of hospital and in slow recovery (

"OBE" acronym = "Overtaken by events"

Thread has continued for a number of days after he left and on his
way.

Big John

Understand. Me too. Back surgery (2nd time) the end of July. I'm still
not happy. They say recovery could take a year, but realistically, I'm not
going to get much better.

Continued need for painkillers means no medical in sight. Boooo. Morning
flying on Sport ticket may be all I have left. Afternoons without
painkillers are VERY uncomfortable, to say the least..

Good luck, and good healing. Out.
--
Jim in NC

Andrew Rowley wrote:
Big John wrote:


People keep laying out 3 times around the world.

Why the fourth attempt? Once would get him in the record book.

He must like playing Russian Roulette and after each circumnavigation
he spins the cylinder and pulls the trigger again. (


I guess he likes doing that type of flying. Why do any of us fly? This
is rec.aviation.homebuit, why would someone build their own aircraft?
Why do some people build several aircraft?

There isn't really a cutoff point between safe and risky. There is
just increasing degrees of risk, and different people draw the line at
different points. All these things are risky:
- flying light aircraft
- flying homebuilt aircraft
- flying single engine at night
- flying SE in IMC
- flying SE over water
- flying to Antarctica

Very good points andrew. Jon has flown his RV-4 around the wotrld three time
plus many other distance flights to many places.
On the other hand I lost a friend last week that was just flying 20 miles to
have lunch.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:38:59 -0600, RR Urban wrote:


I am planning to make PJY for 2004
if JJ is still up to making it happen.

You bum. No feeble excuses will be accepted next year. If the
weather at breakfast time precludes flight then you can drive to
Pinckneyville in time for lunch. You could even bring Shane.

- J.O.-

I am planning to make PJY for 2004
if JJ is still up to making it happen.

You bum. No feeble excuses will be accepted next year. If the
weather at breakfast time precludes flight then you can drive to
Pinckneyville in time for lunch. You could even bring Shane.

- J.O.-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey..., no big deal.
It's not like you guys and gals
haven't seen a real live corpse before.

OTOH..
If Shane came along, sled rides could
be fun.... if proper medical support was
available to care for the injured.

Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog.

Big John wrote:
Andrew

----clip----

People keep laying out 3 times around the world.

Why the fourth attempt? Once would get him in the record book.

Well then, the obvious answer is the record book is not his motivation.
It must be the thrill of setting a goal and meeting it in the face of
great odds, eh?

nafod40 wrote:

Big John wrote:
Andrew

----clip----

People keep laying out 3 times around the world.

Why the fourth attempt? Once would get him in the record book.

Well then, the obvious answer is the record book is not his motivation.
It must be the thrill of setting a goal and meeting it in the face of
great odds, eh?
++++++++++++++

"Obvious"?
"Must be"?


Barnyard BOb -

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Robert

Finally out of Hospital (

Lets hope the outcome is better than you first anticapated.

Best Wishes,
Jonathan Lowe.


Any idea where we can get the Wx briefing he got? They well could
have
forecast the wx correctly and included the wind that did him in.

Big John

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:02:23 +0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote:
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

I'd suggest it is far _worse_ form for the PIC *not* to have
"made sure of"
the necessary resources =in=advance=/


If a pilot makes an "emergency" (or otherwise) landing in a
farmer's field,
is that farmer obligated in any way to sell him fuel from his
farm holding
tank, so he can fly the plane back out?

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

Presumably, Jon *knew* he was going to need fuel when he got
there.

WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE ADVANCE ARRANGEMENTS to ship _his_own_ fuel
there?

What 'flight services' were listed as available at that
location?
Betcha it's "no services".

My understanding is he wasn't actually planning to go there.
There are
probably a number of problems with shipping fuel to places you
are not
planning to go, just in case:
- it's expensive to ship it there
- you may have to ship it out again if you don't use it - I'm not
sure
whether they would let you leave it there indefinitely


So? It costs money. Big deal. It's called "the cost of
insurance".

If his planning/methodology is as good as people are claiming, he
_knew_
that he might have to 'divert' there. And he _consciously_
chose -not- to
have that 'insurance' in place *IF* he did have to divert there.

As events unfolded, he _does_ need the insurance that he decided
not to have.

If it was an 'informed' decision, in retrospect it was the -wrong-
decision,
and the fact remains that he's got nobody to blame but himself
for making
*that* choice.

If it was an *UN-INFORMED* decision, then it is clear that the
failure lies
with the decision-maker. For -not- properly researching things
_before_
making the decision.


There is no 'third possibility'. Thus, _however_ that
*fatally*flawed*
decision was made, John bears the responsibility for it. And he
has to
"live with" the consequences of that bad decision.


Yeah, it'd be "nice" if the NSF would "bail him out". However,
they
have *NO*OBLIGATION*WHATSOEVER* to do so.

They have what *THEY* believe to be good reasons for _not_ doing
so.
Including, but not limited to: "the next bozo who shows up in like
circumstances, and yells 'discrimination', when we refuse to
supply
him, given that we _did_ supply somebody else."

With the exception of a _very_limited_ collection of 'personal
belongings',
*everything* on that base comes out of "somebody's" budget, and
material
_and_ labor has to be cost-accounted for. "Rescuing stranded
adventurers"
is simply _not_ in the budget. _Any_ materials used for such
purposes have
to be replaced. This consumes people's time, reduces the materials
available
for 'primary purpose' of the facility for an _indefinite_ period
(until
replaced), and raises a potential nightmare of logistics
consequences.

EVERYTHING is 'rationed', and consumption in excess of projected
levels
_is_ a big issue.


*GIVEN* that "somebody" is going to have to: arrange for
'supplies' for
Johanson to be shipped in (either what he actually uses, *or* the
'replacement'
for material from on-site inventory), *pay* for the materials,
*pay* for
the transport, etc., etc., ad nauseum. *WHY* should the NSF take
on those
chores, vs Mr. Johanson _doing_it_himself_?

Possible reasons Mr. Johanson isn't doing it for himself:
1) doesn't have the know-how and/or contacts
2) doesn't have the financial resources
3) traffic to/from the area is 'restricted'

We can eliminate #3, since occasional tourist ships go there.


The 'far frontiers' *ARE* an "attractive nuisance". They draw the
kooks,
loonies, and glory-seekers like a magnet. *WITHOUT* considering
whether
Mr. Johanson fits that description, It *is* a fact that "helping"
him
return from his botched 'adventure' *WOULD* cause those who _do_
fit the
"kooks, loonies, and glory-seekers" categorization to be more
likely to
make their own *ill-prepared* attempts. Resulting in _bigger_
drains on
the *limited* resources available.