Grandmother Goes Down at the Pole

(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.

Mainlander wrote:
In article . net,
says...


Mainlander wrote:


In article ,
says...


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
m...


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.

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
news


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_det...73-1-7,00.html
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_det...30-1-7,00.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

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 .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
m...


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/

In article ,
says...
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.

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/

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

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