Jon Johanson stranded in Antartica....

See my corrected posting with correct background.

Big John

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:40:49 -0600, Big John
wrote:

Have a solution to the dumb *******s problem.

NZ is in the Coalition (they have 50 or so engineers rebuilding - not
in combat organizations).

In the joy running around the States and World with capture of SH it
would be an excellent time to pay NZ back for their (unpopular beating
around the world for being a member of the Coalition) support and have
them ask for something in return. Who know? Stranger things have
happened if GVT of NZ gets in the act.

Big John

My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
flight.

I can see his book now on how he worked the system.


On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:38:05 GMT, John Ammeter
wrote:

Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
getting out of Antartica....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../adventurer_dc

Jerry

Since you had the CLUE why didn't you post two days ago?

No matter, the end of the story he pulled a dumb assed stunt.

When I was Current Ops for USAFSO, we had some support activities to
the operation down there so I am talking from more than just my
opinions as was stated prior.

Big John


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:49:06 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:



Morgans wrote:
"Jerry Springer" wrote


My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
flight.

I can see his book now on how he worked the system.


Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about

########################

Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
to have an opinion?

John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
can leave.

Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!

Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.

Have a nice day!
Jim if any of you had a clue you would have known he left a couple days ago.

Duh, I did on 12/15

Jerry

Big John wrote:

Jerry

Since you had the CLUE why didn't you post two days ago?

No matter, the end of the story he pulled a dumb assed stunt.

When I was Current Ops for USAFSO, we had some support activities to
the operation down there so I am talking from more than just my
opinions as was stated prior.

Big John


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:49:06 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:



Morgans wrote:

"Jerry Springer" wrote



My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
flight.

I can see his book now on how he worked the system.


Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about

########################

Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
to have an opinion?

John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
can leave.

Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!

Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.

Have a nice day!

Jim if any of you had a clue you would have known he left a couple days ago.

Jerry

Checked this thread back to 12/12 and no posting by you that all was
solved and he was gone on his way.

Are you sure you wrote and hit your send key?

Big John


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:11:19 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:

Duh, I did on 12/15

Jerry

Big John wrote:

Jerry

Since you had the CLUE why didn't you post two days ago?

No matter, the end of the story he pulled a dumb assed stunt.

When I was Current Ops for USAFSO, we had some support activities to
the operation down there so I am talking from more than just my
opinions as was stated prior.

Big John


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:49:06 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:



Morgans wrote:

"Jerry Springer" wrote



My personal bottom line sure doesn't hold him out as a RESPONSIBLE
PILOT and he definitely is not a poster boy for GA (or experimental)
flight.

I can see his book now on how he worked the system.


Once again you speak about something you do not have a clue about

########################

Jerry, can't you see that you don't have to have a clue about what was done,
to have an opinion?

John's "opinion" is no less valid than your opinion. What has been done has
been done. What the solution is, is irrelevant. His tit is in the sling,
and he is in their house. That makes them right. If he does not like it he
can leave.

Oh, what's that, you say? He can't leave? Oh yea!!!

Did I say they hold all the cards? They do. That is not opinion. What you
and I think is irrelevant. They call the shots. Period. In the meantime,
insulting others does nothing but make you look foolish.

Have a nice day!

Jim if any of you had a clue you would have known he left a couple days ago.

Jerry

Checked this thread back to 12/12 and no posting by you that all was
solved and he was gone on his way.

Are you sure you wrote and hit your send key?

Big John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have this to offer in Jerry's behalf.....

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:53:19 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:

Ah Forrest he is already on his way, by this time is probably already at his
next destination.


Barnyard BOb --

Big John wrote:
Jerry

Checked this thread back to 12/12 and no posting by you that all was
solved and he was gone on his way.

Are you sure you wrote and hit your send key?

Big John


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:11:19 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:


Duh, I did on 12/15

Jerry

Big John wrote:


Jerry

Since you had the CLUE why didn't you post two days ago?

No matter, the end of the story he pulled a dumb assed stunt.

******************
Sorry posted the following on "12/14" not 12/15

Jerry

Ah Forrest he is already on his way, by this time is probably already at his
next destination.

Forrest wrote:

"Forrest" wrote in message
...

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message


news
In article ,
"Forrest" wrote:


What if all of those persons who are sympathetic to Jon Johanson's


plight

were to put their money where their mouth is, start a fund, hire a


whatever,

send a hero, make us all cry tears of joy, and save Jon. I do not


write

this with animosity. Prove to me that there is a legitimate fund in


place

and I'll send five bucks. And I've never even heard of the guy before


I

started reading these strings.


A better idea is to contact our Congressmen and send NSF a message! They
are WAY out of line here and need to be reigned in, just like a lot of
other governmental organizations.



Like I said. Five bucks.

Forrest



Write congress and leave the guy out there freezing his ass off while we
wait?! PROVE that there is a LEGITIMATE fund in place and, hell, I'll make
it TEN bucks. Any takers or movers and shakers out there?

Forrest

Big John wrote:
Been a small flame and here is some fuel for a big flame.

A lot of people posting need to research the Treaties, rules and
regulations for any type operations in Antarctica. Also if one reads
old and current history there are multitudes of stories about the Wx
changes within 10-15 minutes with very high winds coming up and zero
visibility lasting for days. Wx forecasting down there is more of an
art than a science. With any sense you don't fly into that area
without lots of backup and alternate options. Particularly in a GA
bird.

Way back when I was just a tadpole on my pappy's knee, he was an aviator
in VX-6, the Navy's Antarctic Exploration Squadron (formerly known as
the Puckered Penguins, which had a cool patch that showed a shnockered
penguin with a bottle of XXX in one flipper and a cigar in the other,
which they then changed later to a kinder/gentler "Ice Pirates", which
sure sounded a little too much like A-- Pirates to me). Those guys flew
down to "the ice" in their DC-4s, with a few weather ships stationed
along the way, and their spinning compasses, etc. Once there after many
turnbacks at the point-of-no-return, they would lose a few planes each
season, as they went where no man had gone before. High adventure, baby!
I have a special place in my heart for Antartic aviators.

I applaud our Aussie friend for going for it, treaties and weather be
damned. Rules are for regular people. He took the big odds in a
calculated risk. Power to him. I can just imagine hour after hour over
the loneliest, most unfriendly to life terrain on this planet, bar no
other. Like an endless 0/0 night carrier landing. In a homebuilt that
could have come out of my garage, if I had half the cajones. I salute
you, my friend.

Mike

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:11:20 -0600, Big John
wrote:

I look at it this way, due to my "upbringing", to not help is .. well,
un-american regardless of rules and regulations, or the reason for the
need in the first place. OTOH, there is absolutely nothing wrong with
charging an arm and a leg so save some ones ass.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

To give closure.

OBE as one of my old bosses used to say.

Big John


On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:38:05 GMT, John Ammeter
wrote:

Jon Johanson, known for his round the world flights in his
RV-4 as well as flights to Oshkosh may have some trouble
getting out of Antartica....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../adventurer_dc

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.